Daniel E Hale1, Sharon B Wyatt2, Stephen Buka3, Debra Cherry4, Kendall K Cislo5, Donald J Dudley6, Pearl Anna McElfish7, Gwendolyn S Norman8, Simone A Reynolds9, Anna Maria Siega-Riz10, Sandra Wadlinger11, Cheryl K Walker12, James M Robbins13. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas; hale@uthscsa.edu. 2. School of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi; 3. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; and. 6. Division of Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia; 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Univesity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Northwest, Fayetteville, Arkansas; 8. Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; 9. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York; 10. Department of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 11. Raymond G. Perelman Center for Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; and. 13. Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2009, the National Children's Study (NCS) Vanguard Study tested the feasibility of household-based recruitment and participant enrollment using a birth-rate probability sample. In 2010, the NCS Program Office launched 3 additional recruitment approaches. We tested whether provider-based recruitment could improve recruitment outcomes compared with household-based recruitment. METHODS: The NCS aimed to recruit 18- to 49-year-old women who were pregnant or at risk for becoming pregnant who lived in designated geographic segments within primary sampling units, generally counties. Using provider-based recruitment, 10 study centers engaged providers to enroll eligible participants at their practice. Recruitment models used different levels of provider engagement (full, intermediate, information-only). RESULTS: The percentage of eligible women per county ranged from 1.5% to 57.3%. Across the centers, 3371 potential participants were approached for screening, 3459 (92%) were screened and 1479 were eligible (43%). Of those 1181 (80.0%) gave consent and 1008 (94%) were retained until delivery. Recruited participants were generally representative of the county population. CONCLUSIONS: Provider-based recruitment was successful in recruiting NCS participants. Challenges included time-intensity of engaging the clinical practices, differential willingness of providers to participate, and necessary reliance on providers for participant identification. The vast majority of practices cooperated to some degree. Recruitment from obstetric practices is an effective means of obtaining a representative sample.
OBJECTIVE: In 2009, the National Children's Study (NCS) Vanguard Study tested the feasibility of household-based recruitment and participant enrollment using a birth-rate probability sample. In 2010, the NCS Program Office launched 3 additional recruitment approaches. We tested whether provider-based recruitment could improve recruitment outcomes compared with household-based recruitment. METHODS: The NCS aimed to recruit 18- to 49-year-old women who were pregnant or at risk for becoming pregnant who lived in designated geographic segments within primary sampling units, generally counties. Using provider-based recruitment, 10 study centers engaged providers to enroll eligible participants at their practice. Recruitment models used different levels of provider engagement (full, intermediate, information-only). RESULTS: The percentage of eligible women per county ranged from 1.5% to 57.3%. Across the centers, 3371 potential participants were approached for screening, 3459 (92%) were screened and 1479 were eligible (43%). Of those 1181 (80.0%) gave consent and 1008 (94%) were retained until delivery. Recruited participants were generally representative of the county population. CONCLUSIONS: Provider-based recruitment was successful in recruiting NCS participants. Challenges included time-intensity of engaging the clinical practices, differential willingness of providers to participate, and necessary reliance on providers for participant identification. The vast majority of practices cooperated to some degree. Recruitment from obstetric practices is an effective means of obtaining a representative sample.
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Enrique F Schisterman; Anne M Sweeney; Timothy C Wilcosky; Robert E Gore-Langton; Courtney D Lynch; Dana Boyd Barr; Steven M Schrader; Sungduk Kim; Zhen Chen; Rajeshwari Sundaram Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Vincent W V Jaddoe; Johan P Mackenbach; Henriëtte A Moll; Eric A P Steegers; Henning Tiemeier; Frank C Verhulst; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Albert Hofman Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2006-07-07 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Leonardo Trasande; Howard F Andrews; Christopher Goranson; Wenhui Li; Elise C Barrow; Suzette B Vanderbeek; Brittany McCrary; Suzannah B Allen; Kathleen D Gallagher; Andrew Rundle; James Quinn; Barbara Brenner Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jean M Kerver; Michael R Elliott; Gwendolyn S Norman; Robert J Sokol; Daniel P Keating; Glenn E Copeland; Christine C Johnson; Kendall K Cislo; Kirsten H Alcser; Shonda R Kruger-Ndiaye; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Shobha Mehta; Christine L M Joseph; Nigel Paneth Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Brenda Eskenazi; Eleanor A Gladstone; Gertrud S Berkowitz; Christina H Drew; Elaine M Faustman; Nina T Holland; Bruce Lanphear; Stefanie J Meisel; Frederica P Perera; Virginia A Rauh; Anne Sweeney; Robin M Whyatt; Kimberly Yolton Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Germaine M Buck; Courtney D Lynch; Joseph B Stanford; Anne M Sweeney; Laura A Schieve; John C Rockett; Sherry G Selevan; Steven M Schrader Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Laura L Blaisdell; Jennifer A Zellner; Alison A King; Elaine Faustman; Mari Wilhelm; Mark L Hudak; Robert D Annett Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Beth B Tigges; Jill L Kaar; Nancy Erbstein; Pamela Silberman; Kate Winseck; Maria Lopez-Class; Thomas M Burbacher Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Peter K Gilbertson; Susan Forrester; Linda Andrews; Kathleen McCann; Lydia Rogers; Christina Park; Jack Moye Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-03-05