BACKGROUND: Recruitment into large, preconception randomised clinical trials (RCT) is challenging. We describe clinic and community-based preconception recruitment strategies for the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) trial and highlight approaches that were and were not successful. This longitudinal RCT was conducted at four major sites in the US. Eligible women had one to two prior pregnancy losses and were actively trying to become pregnant. METHODS: Provider/clinic and community-based outreach strategies were utilised, and the recruitment rate and costs of methods were assessed. RESULTS: A screening questionnaire was completed by 5485 women; 42.4% (n = 2323) screened were initially eligible, of whom 50.7% (n = 1228) were randomised. Provider/clinic-based recruitment yielded the highest number eligible of those screened (30.1%) and also the most randomised participants overall (40.3%). The next highest yield came from direct mail and brochures/flyers at 13.1% and 12.5% of women randomised, respectively. However, direct mailings cost $720 per participant randomised. Other than word of mouth, provider/clinic-based recruitment was the most cost effective method, costing an average of $60 per randomised participant. Web-based recruitment yielded 4.7% of participants at a cost of $278 per randomised participant. CONCLUSIONS: Provider and clinic-based recruitment was the most effective and cost-efficient method of recruitment in a preconception intervention study of reproduction among women.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recruitment into large, preconception randomised clinical trials (RCT) is challenging. We describe clinic and community-based preconception recruitment strategies for the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) trial and highlight approaches that were and were not successful. This longitudinal RCT was conducted at four major sites in the US. Eligible women had one to two prior pregnancy losses and were actively trying to become pregnant. METHODS: Provider/clinic and community-based outreach strategies were utilised, and the recruitment rate and costs of methods were assessed. RESULTS: A screening questionnaire was completed by 5485 women; 42.4% (n = 2323) screened were initially eligible, of whom 50.7% (n = 1228) were randomised. Provider/clinic-based recruitment yielded the highest number eligible of those screened (30.1%) and also the most randomised participants overall (40.3%). The next highest yield came from direct mail and brochures/flyers at 13.1% and 12.5% of women randomised, respectively. However, direct mailings cost $720 per participant randomised. Other than word of mouth, provider/clinic-based recruitment was the most cost effective method, costing an average of $60 per randomised participant. Web-based recruitment yielded 4.7% of participants at a cost of $278 per randomised participant. CONCLUSIONS: Provider and clinic-based recruitment was the most effective and cost-efficient method of recruitment in a preconception intervention study of reproduction among women.
Authors: Cecilia Pyper; Lise Bromhall; Sarah Dummett; Douglas G Altman; Pat Brownbill; Michael Murphy Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Enrique F Schisterman; Robert M Silver; Neil J Perkins; Sunni L Mumford; Brian W Whitcomb; Joseph B Stanford; Laurie L Lesher; David Faraggi; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Richard W Browne; Janet M Townsend; Mark White; Anne M Lynch; Noya Galai Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: James M Roberts; Leslie Myatt; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth A Thom; John C Hauth; Kenneth J Leveno; Gail D Pearson; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Brian M Mercer; Alan M Peaceman; Susan M Ramin; Marshall W Carpenter; Philip Samuels; Anthony Sciscione; Margaret Harper; Wendy J Smith; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joanne H E Promislow; Christina M Makarushka; Jessica R Gorman; Penelope P Howards; David A Savitz; Katherine E Hartmann Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Enrique F Schisterman; Robert M Silver; Laurie L Lesher; David Faraggi; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Janet M Townsend; Anne M Lynch; Neil J Perkins; Sunni L Mumford; Noya Galai Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A J Wilcox; C R Weinberg; J F O'Connor; D D Baird; J P Schlatterer; R E Canfield; E G Armstrong; B C Nisula Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1988-07-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Nabil El-Khorazaty; Allan A Johnson; Michele Kiely; Ayman A E El-Mohandes; Siva Subramanian; Haziel A Laryea; Kennan B Murray; Jutta S Thornberry; Jill G Joseph Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Lindsey A Sjaarda; Rose G Radin; Robert M Silver; Emily Mitchell; Sunni L Mumford; Brian Wilcox; Noya Galai; Neil J Perkins; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Joseph B Stanford; Enrique F Schisterman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Theresa A Lawrie; Ana Pilar Betrán; Mandisa Singata-Madliki; Alvaro Ciganda; G Justus Hofmeyr; José M Belizán; Tina Dannemann Purnat; Sarah Manyame; Catherine Parker; Gabriela Cormick Journal: Trials Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 2.279