Stacey G Moe1, Leslie A Lytle2, Marilyn S Nanney3, Jennifer A Linde4, Melissa N Laska4. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA moe@umn.edu. 2. Department of Health Behavior, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Young adults are at risk of weight gain, but little is known about designing effective weight control trials for young adults or how to recruit and retain participants in these programs. The Choosing Healthy Options in College Environments and Settings (CHOICES) study evaluated the effectiveness of a weight gain prevention intervention for 2-year college students. We describe the methods used to recruit and retain the colleges and their students, describe the sample and discuss recommendations for future studies. METHODS: Students were recruited into a 24-month trial of a weight control intervention with assessment periods at baseline, 4-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: We successfully recruited 441 students through partnerships with three 2-year colleges through a variety of campus-based methods. Ultimately, 83.4% of the randomized cohort participated in the 24-month assessment period. Those retained more often were White (p = 0.03) compared to those who dropped out or were lost to follow-up; no other socio-demographic factor (e.g. gender, ethnicity and education), body mass index, body fat, waist circumference or weight status was observed to differ between randomly assigned groups. CONCLUSION: Two-year colleges and their students are interested in participating in weight-related trials and partnering with universities for research. Researchers must work closely with administrators to identify benefits to their institutions and to resolve student-level barriers to recruitment and retention. Our experiences from the Choosing Healthy Options in College Environments and Settings study should be useful in identifying effective recruitment and retention methods for weight gain prevention trials among young adults.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Young adults are at risk of weight gain, but little is known about designing effective weight control trials for young adults or how to recruit and retain participants in these programs. The Choosing Healthy Options in College Environments and Settings (CHOICES) study evaluated the effectiveness of a weight gain prevention intervention for 2-year college students. We describe the methods used to recruit and retain the colleges and their students, describe the sample and discuss recommendations for future studies. METHODS: Students were recruited into a 24-month trial of a weight control intervention with assessment periods at baseline, 4-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: We successfully recruited 441 students through partnerships with three 2-year colleges through a variety of campus-based methods. Ultimately, 83.4% of the randomized cohort participated in the 24-month assessment period. Those retained more often were White (p = 0.03) compared to those who dropped out or were lost to follow-up; no other socio-demographic factor (e.g. gender, ethnicity and education), body mass index, body fat, waist circumference or weight status was observed to differ between randomly assigned groups. CONCLUSION: Two-year colleges and their students are interested in participating in weight-related trials and partnering with universities for research. Researchers must work closely with administrators to identify benefits to their institutions and to resolve student-level barriers to recruitment and retention. Our experiences from the Choosing Healthy Options in College Environments and Settings study should be useful in identifying effective recruitment and retention methods for weight gain prevention trials among young adults.
Authors: Leslie A Lytle; Laura P Svetkey; Kevin Patrick; Steven H Belle; I Diana Fernandez; John M Jakicic; Karen C Johnson; Christine M Olson; Deborah F Tate; Rena Wing; Catherine M Loria Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: C E Lewis; D R Jacobs; H McCreath; C I Kiefe; P J Schreiner; D E Smith; O D Williams Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-06-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Marilyn S Nanney; Leslie A Lytle; Kian Farbakhsh; Stacey G Moe; Jennifer A Linde; Jolynn K Gardner; Melissa N Laska Journal: J Am Coll Health Date: 2015-02-18
Authors: Leslie A Lytle; Melissa N Laska; Jennifer A Linde; Stacey G Moe; Marilyn S Nanney; Peter J Hannan; Darin J Erickson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Melinda J Hutchesson; Robin Callister; Philip J Morgan; Ilung Pranata; Erin D Clarke; Geoff Skinner; Lee M Ashton; Megan C Whatnall; Mark Jones; Christopher Oldmeadow; Clare E Collins Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2018-05-02
Authors: Debra Haire-Joshu; Alexandra B Morshed; Allison Phad; Shelly Johnston; Rachel G Tabak Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2021 Mar-Apr 01