Natalie Walders-Abramson1, Barbara Anderson2, Mary E Larkin3, Nancy Chang4, Elizabeth Venditti5, Suzan Bzdick6, Jeanie B Tryggestad7, Kenny Tan8, Mitchell E Geffner9, Kathryn Hirst10. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Denver and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 8. The George Washington University Biostatistics Center, Rockville, MD, USA ktan@bsc.gwu.edu. 9. The Saban Research Institute of Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. The George Washington University Biostatistics Center, Rockville, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Conducting longitudinal research related to chronic illness in adolescents is inherently challenging due to developmental changes and psychosocial stressors. Participants in the Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth clinical trial were socioeconomically disadvantaged as well. This study assessed attitudes and beliefs about retention in Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth to shed light on the factors that potentially promote and detract from the likelihood of sustained participation. METHODS: After an average 7.3 years of follow-up (range 4.9-9.5), Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth participants completed a survey examining their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to sustained involvement in the protocol. RESULTS: The most common reasons for staying in Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth included having a strong relationship with the medical team, getting study-provided diabetes care, access to free diabetes medicine and supplies, and being part of a large study to learn more about how to care for youth-onset type 2 diabetes. The most commonly endorsed challenges included scheduling conflicts, possibly disappointing others, difficulties getting to study visits, and the occurrence of other medical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other published reports, a supportive relationship with study staff was commonly endorsed as a benefit of engagement in the longitudinal study, suggesting that rapport, staff consistency, and relationship quality are important components of optimal retention. Moreover, our findings suggest the value of trying to remove logistical barriers, such as transportation and scheduling challenges, in order to promote long-term participation in research. Further research is recommended to evaluate factors that contribute to attrition versus retention in an a priori manner within longitudinal studies, especially protocols involving cohorts that are more vulnerable to attrition due to developmental transitions and/or socioeconomic challenges. Additional efforts to optimize quantitative and qualitative measurement of barriers would also help to expand our understanding of how to optimally retain participants in longitudinal protocols.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Conducting longitudinal research related to chronic illness in adolescents is inherently challenging due to developmental changes and psychosocial stressors. Participants in the Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth clinical trial were socioeconomically disadvantaged as well. This study assessed attitudes and beliefs about retention in Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth to shed light on the factors that potentially promote and detract from the likelihood of sustained participation. METHODS: After an average 7.3 years of follow-up (range 4.9-9.5), Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth participants completed a survey examining their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to sustained involvement in the protocol. RESULTS: The most common reasons for staying in Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth included having a strong relationship with the medical team, getting study-provided diabetes care, access to free diabetes medicine and supplies, and being part of a large study to learn more about how to care for youth-onset type 2 diabetes. The most commonly endorsed challenges included scheduling conflicts, possibly disappointing others, difficulties getting to study visits, and the occurrence of other medical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other published reports, a supportive relationship with study staff was commonly endorsed as a benefit of engagement in the longitudinal study, suggesting that rapport, staff consistency, and relationship quality are important components of optimal retention. Moreover, our findings suggest the value of trying to remove logistical barriers, such as transportation and scheduling challenges, in order to promote long-term participation in research. Further research is recommended to evaluate factors that contribute to attrition versus retention in an a priori manner within longitudinal studies, especially protocols involving cohorts that are more vulnerable to attrition due to developmental transitions and/or socioeconomic challenges. Additional efforts to optimize quantitative and qualitative measurement of barriers would also help to expand our understanding of how to optimally retain participants in longitudinal protocols.
Authors: Lisa M Nicholson; Patricia M Schwirian; Elizabeth G Klein; Theresa Skybo; Lisa Murray-Johnson; Ihuoma Eneli; Bethany Boettner; Gina M French; Judith A Groner Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: John R Kramer; Margaret L Bayless; Gayle M Lorenzi; Georgia K Ziegler; Mary E Larkin; Mary E Lackaye; Judith Harth; Lisa J Diminick; Karen L Anderson; Barbara H Braffett; Patricia A Cleary Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Ann L Graziotti; Jane Hammond; Daniel S Messinger; Carla M Bann; Cynthia Miller-Loncar; Jean E Twomey; Charlotte Bursi; Eunice Woldt; Jay Ann Nelson; Debra Fleischmann; Barbara Alexander Journal: J Nurs Scholarsh Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 3.176
Authors: Kenneth C Copeland; Philip Zeitler; Mitchell Geffner; Cindy Guandalini; Janine Higgins; Kathryn Hirst; Francine R Kaufman; Barbara Linder; Santica Marcovina; Paul McGuigan; Laura Pyle; William Tamborlane; Steven Willi Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Phil Zeitler; Kathryn Hirst; Laura Pyle; Barbara Linder; Kenneth Copeland; Silva Arslanian; Leona Cuttler; David M Nathan; Sherida Tollefsen; Denise Wilfley; Francine Kaufman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michelle S Hamstra; Victoria L Pemberton; Nicholas Dagincourt; Danielle Hollenbeck-Pringle; Felicia L Trachtenberg; James F Cnota; Andrew M Atz; Elizabeth Cappella; Sylvia De Nobele; Josephine Grima; Martha King; Rosalind Korsin; Linda M Lambert; Meghan K MacNeal; Larry W Markham; Gretchen MacCarrick; Donna M Sylvester; Patricia Walter; Mingfen Xu; Ronald V Lacro Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Jennifer Q Chadwick; Dorothy J Van Buren; Elisa Morales; Alexandra Timpson; Ericka L Abrams; Amy Syme; Jeff Preske; Gerardo Mireles; Barbara Anderson; Nisha Grover; Lori Laffel Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 2.486