BACKGROUND: A major potential barrier for studying behavioral interventions for patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is the willingness and ability of people to enroll in and adhere to behavioral interventions, especially when the intervention involves dyads of patients with MCI and support partners. Details regarding recruitment strategies and processes (such as number of dyads screened) are often missing from reports of behavioral trials. In addition, reports do not detail the reasons a potentially eligible candidate opts out of participation in a research study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the challenges and successes of enrollment and retention in a behavioral trial for persons with MCI and their care partners, and to better understand barriers to participation from the patient's point of view. DESIGN: Multi-site, randomized trial. SETTING: Major medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Our accrual target for the study was 60 participants. Potential candidates were patients presenting to memory evaluation clinics whose resulting clinical diagnosis was MCI. A total of 200 consecutive potential candidates were approached about participating in the study across the three sites. INTERVENTION: Detailed recruitment and retention data of a randomized trial comparing two behavioral interventions (memory notebook training versus computer training) provided in two separate training time frames (10 days versus 6 weeks). MEASUREMENTS: Structured interview with those declining to participate in the trial. RESULTS: Overall recruitment 37% with a range of 13%-72% across sites. Overall retention 86% with a range of 74%-94% across sites. CONCLUSION: The primary barriers to enrollment from the patient's perspective were distance to the treatment center and competing comprehensive behavioral programming. However, retention data suggest that those dyads who enroll in behavioral programs are highly committed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A major potential barrier for studying behavioral interventions for patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is the willingness and ability of people to enroll in and adhere to behavioral interventions, especially when the intervention involves dyads of patients with MCI and support partners. Details regarding recruitment strategies and processes (such as number of dyads screened) are often missing from reports of behavioral trials. In addition, reports do not detail the reasons a potentially eligible candidate opts out of participation in a research study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the challenges and successes of enrollment and retention in a behavioral trial for persons with MCI and their care partners, and to better understand barriers to participation from the patient's point of view. DESIGN: Multi-site, randomized trial. SETTING: Major medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Our accrual target for the study was 60 participants. Potential candidates were patients presenting to memory evaluation clinics whose resulting clinical diagnosis was MCI. A total of 200 consecutive potential candidates were approached about participating in the study across the three sites. INTERVENTION: Detailed recruitment and retention data of a randomized trial comparing two behavioral interventions (memory notebook training versus computer training) provided in two separate training time frames (10 days versus 6 weeks). MEASUREMENTS: Structured interview with those declining to participate in the trial. RESULTS: Overall recruitment 37% with a range of 13%-72% across sites. Overall retention 86% with a range of 74%-94% across sites. CONCLUSION: The primary barriers to enrollment from the patient's perspective were distance to the treatment center and competing comprehensive behavioral programming. However, retention data suggest that those dyads who enroll in behavioral programs are highly committed.
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Melanie C Greenaway; Sherrie M Hanna; Susan W Lepore; Glenn E Smith Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2008 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Oscar L Lopez; William J Jagust; Steven T DeKosky; James T Becker; Annette Fitzpatrick; Corinne Dulberg; John Breitner; Constantine Lyketsos; Beverly Jones; Claudia Kawas; Michelle Carlson; Lewis H Kuller Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2003-10
Authors: Claudine Legault; Janine M Jennings; Jeffrey A Katula; Dale Dagenbach; Sarah A Gaussoin; Kaycee M Sink; Stephen R Rapp; W Jack Rejeski; Sally A Shumaker; Mark A Espeland Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Andrea V Cuc; Dona E C Locke; Noah Duncan; Julie A Fields; Charlene Hoffman Snyder; Sherrie Hanna; Angela Lunde; Glenn E Smith; Melanie Chandler Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Melanie J Chandler; Dona E C Locke; Noah L Duncan; Sherrie M Hanna; Andrea V Cuc; Julie A Fields; Charlene R Hoffman Snyder; Angela M Lunde; Glenn E Smith Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2017-09-06
Authors: Anne L Shandera-Ochsner; Melanie J Chandler; Dona E Locke; Colleen T Ball; Julia E Crook; Vaishali S Phatak; Glenn E Smith Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Aladdin H Shadyab; Andrea Z LaCroix; Howard H Feldman; Christopher H van Dyck; Ozioma C Okonkwo; Steven P Tam; J Kaci Fairchild; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; Genevieve Matthews; Daniel Bennett; Alexandre A Shadyab; Kimberly A Schafer; Rosemary H Morrison; Sean A Kipperman; Jennifer Mason; Donna Tan; Ronald G Thomas; Carl W Cotman; Laura D Baker Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 16.655