Karen A Robinson1, Victor D Dinglas2, Vineeth Sukrithan2, Ramakrishna Yalamanchilli2, Pedro A Mendez-Tellez3, Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb4, Dale M Needham2. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. Electronic address: krobin@jhmi.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. 4. Department of Acute and Chronic Care, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 525 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The retention of participants in studies is important for the validity of research. We updated our prior systematic review (2005) to assess retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Embase (August 2013) for English-language reports of studies that described retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. We abstracted each retention strategy, and two authors independently classified each retention strategy with one of the themes developed in our prior review. RESULTS: We identified 88 studies (67 newly identified studies), six of which were designed to compare retention strategies, whereas the remainder described retention strategies and retention rates. There were 985 strategies abstracted from the descriptive studies (617 from new studies), with a median (interquartile range) number of strategies per study of 10 (7 to 17) and a median (interquartile range) number of themes per study of 6 (4 to 7). Financial incentives were used in 47 (57%) of the descriptive studies. We classified 28% of the strategies under the theme of "contact and scheduling methods," with 83% of the identified studies using at least one strategy within this theme. The number of strategies used was positively correlated with retention rate (P = 0.027), but the number of themes was not associated with retention rate (P = 0.469). CONCLUSION: The number of studies describing retention strategies has substantially increased since our prior review. However, the lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity in the types of strategies, participant population and study designs, prohibits synthesis to determine the types of cohort retention strategies that were most effective. However, using a larger number of retention strategies, across five or six different themes, appears to retain more study participants.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The retention of participants in studies is important for the validity of research. We updated our prior systematic review (2005) to assess retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Embase (August 2013) for English-language reports of studies that described retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. We abstracted each retention strategy, and two authors independently classified each retention strategy with one of the themes developed in our prior review. RESULTS: We identified 88 studies (67 newly identified studies), six of which were designed to compare retention strategies, whereas the remainder described retention strategies and retention rates. There were 985 strategies abstracted from the descriptive studies (617 from new studies), with a median (interquartile range) number of strategies per study of 10 (7 to 17) and a median (interquartile range) number of themes per study of 6 (4 to 7). Financial incentives were used in 47 (57%) of the descriptive studies. We classified 28% of the strategies under the theme of "contact and scheduling methods," with 83% of the identified studies using at least one strategy within this theme. The number of strategies used was positively correlated with retention rate (P = 0.027), but the number of themes was not associated with retention rate (P = 0.469). CONCLUSION: The number of studies describing retention strategies has substantially increased since our prior review. However, the lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity in the types of strategies, participant population and study designs, prohibits synthesis to determine the types of cohort retention strategies that were most effective. However, using a larger number of retention strategies, across five or six different themes, appears to retain more study participants.
Authors: Claire E Wilcox; Michael P Bogenschutz; Masato Nakazawa; George E Woody Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: David S Festinger; Douglas B Marlowe; Jason R Croft; Karen L Dugosh; Nicole K Mastro; Patricia A Lee; David S Dematteo; Nicholas S Patapis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-01-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Marvella E Ford; Suzanne Havstad; Sally W Vernon; Shawna D Davis; David Kroll; Lois Lamerato; G Marie Swanson Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2006-08
Authors: Karen A Robinson; Cheryl R Dennison; Dawn M Wayman; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Florencia Etcheverry; Jennifer L Evans; Emilia Sanchez; Eva Mendez-Arancibia; Mercé Meroño; José M Gatell; Kimberly Page; Joan Joseph Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Joshua D Grill; Jimmy Kwon; Merilee A Teylan; Aimee Pierce; Eric D Vidoni; Jeffrey M Burns; Allison Lindauer; Joseph Quinn; Jeff Kaye; Daniel L Gillen; Bin Nan Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2019 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Shana D Stites; R Scott Turner; Jeanine Gill; Anna Gurian; Jason Karlawish; Joshua D Grill Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2021-01-10 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Lisa Aronson Friedman; Daniel L Young; Archana Nelliot; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Dale M Needham; Victor D Dinglas Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Eileen O Dareng; Yinka Olaniyan; Sally N Adebamowo; Olabimpe R Eseyin; Michael K Odutola; Elonna M Obiefuna; Richard A Offiong; Paul P Pharoah; Clement A Adebamowo Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Michelle N Eakin; Thomas Eckmann; Victor D Dinglas; Ayodele A Akinremi; Megan Hosey; Ramona O Hopkins; Dale M Needham Journal: Chest Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Krista M Perreira; Maria de Los Angeles Abreu; Beibo Zhao; Marston E Youngblood; Cesar Alvarado; Nora Cobo; Madeline Crespo-Figueroa; Melawhy L Garcia; Aida L Giachello; Maria S Pattany; Ana C Talavera; Gregory A Talavera Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897