Jill L Kaar1, Nina Markovic2, Laura B Amsden3, Janice Gilliland4, Charles F Shorter5, Bonika Peters6, Nancy M Nachreiner6, Mischka Garel7, Will Nicholas8, Bradley Skarpness9, Carolyn Drews-Botsch10, Carol J Hogue10, Dana Dabelea11. 1. University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; jill.kaar@ucdenver.edu. 2. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 3. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois; 4. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; 5. Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana; 6. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 7. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; 8. University of California, Los Angeles, California; 9. Battelle Institute, Atlanta, Georgia; and. 10. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 11. University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado;
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have reported the outcome of direct outreach methods for recruitment of research participants in population-based samples. We describe the relationship of outreach strategies that are tailored to specific community factors to recruitment and consent outcomes in 10 National Children's Study direct outreach study locations (all were single counties). METHODS: Each study center collected data from a target population of women who resided in selected county segments that were sampled based on a geographic area probability sampling design. Based on county characteristics of the 10 study locations, each study center used site-specific marketing approaches (direct mail, mass media, provider referrals, social networking) to recruit study participants. Recruitment success was measured by the number of recruited women as well as by a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of various recruitment methods. RESULTS: The number of women who consented varied from 67 to 792. The majority of women were pregnant at the time of consent. Community awareness varied from <1% to 70%. Although no significant associations were found between community characteristics and recruitment success, we found that certain types of outreach strategies enhanced recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: In a small sample of 10 US counties, recruitment success was not associated with community characteristics. It was, however, associated with certain types of outreach strategies that may be more effective in close-knit communities.
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have reported the outcome of direct outreach methods for recruitment of research participants in population-based samples. We describe the relationship of outreach strategies that are tailored to specific community factors to recruitment and consent outcomes in 10 National Children's Study direct outreach study locations (all were single counties). METHODS: Each study center collected data from a target population of women who resided in selected county segments that were sampled based on a geographic area probability sampling design. Based on county characteristics of the 10 study locations, each study center used site-specific marketing approaches (direct mail, mass media, provider referrals, social networking) to recruit study participants. Recruitment success was measured by the number of recruited women as well as by a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of various recruitment methods. RESULTS: The number of women who consented varied from 67 to 792. The majority of women were pregnant at the time of consent. Community awareness varied from <1% to 70%. Although no significant associations were found between community characteristics and recruitment success, we found that certain types of outreach strategies enhanced recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: In a small sample of 10 US counties, recruitment success was not associated with community characteristics. It was, however, associated with certain types of outreach strategies that may be more effective in close-knit communities.
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: David A Webb; James C Coyne; Robert L Goldenberg; Vijaya K Hogan; Irma T Elo; Joan R Bloch; Leny Mathew; Ian M Bennett; Erika F Dennis; Jennifer F Culhane Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: David Wendler; Raynard Kington; Jennifer Madans; Gretchen Van Wye; Heidi Christ-Schmidt; Laura A Pratt; Otis W Brawley; Cary P Gross; Ezekiel Emanuel Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-12-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Donna P Manca; Maeve O'Beirne; Teresa Lightbody; David W Johnston; Dayna-Lynn Dymianiw; Katarzyna Nastalska; Lubna Anis; Sarah Loehr; Anne Gilbert; Bonnie J Kaplan Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 3.007
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: Patricia M McGovern; Nancy M Nachreiner; Jane L Holl; Neal Halfon; Dana Dabelea; Laura Caulfield; Jane A Cauley; Mark S Innocenti; Laura Amsden; Nina Markovic; Minsun Riddles; Sara Adams Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Danielle Symons Downs; Joshua M Smyth; Kristin E Heron; Mark E Feinberg; Marianne Hillemeier; Frank T Materia Journal: J Technol Behav Sci Date: 2018-12-15
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