Marvella E Ford1, Katherine R Sterba2, James D Bearden3, Lucy Gansauer4, Leslie A Moore5, Jane Zapka6. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Cancer Disparities, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: fordmar@musc.edu. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: sterba@musc.edu. 3. Gibbs Cancer Center & Research Institute, Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System, Spartanburg, SC, USA. Electronic address: jbearden@gibbscc.org. 4. Gibbs Cancer Center & Research Institute, Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System, Spartanburg, SC, USA. Electronic address: lgansauer@gibbscc.org. 5. Medical Student, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: moorlesl@musc.edu. 6. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: zapka@musc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival rates are increasing. Effective strategies to recruit CRC survivors to surveillance studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the barriers encountered while recruiting CRC survivors to a study assessing their surveillance care experiences. METHODS: The study included three phases: (I) focus groups/key informant interviews; (II) cognitive interviews; and (III) a statewide population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: In Phases I-II, clinic-based data and cancer center registries were used to identify CRC survivors who had received CRC resection within the past 18 months. In Phase III, survivors who had received CRC resection within the past two years were identified via a statewide, population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: In Phase I, 16 survivors participated in focus groups at two National Cancer Center-affiliated sites (response rate=29.6%). Eighteen additional survivors participated in individual interviews (response rate=50%). In Phase II, 11 survivors participated in cognitive interviews (response rate=81.8%). In Phase III, 150 survivors participated in the statewide survey (response rate=62.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Group-based/in-person recruitment efforts were unsuccessful due to scheduling barriers, lack of transportation, and remaining discomfort from previous resection surgery. Telephone-based data collection strategies produced higher response rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To enhance CRC surveillance research, future studies could incorporate CRC survivor-centered recruitment strategies.
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival rates are increasing. Effective strategies to recruit CRC survivors to surveillance studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the barriers encountered while recruiting CRC survivors to a study assessing their surveillance care experiences. METHODS: The study included three phases: (I) focus groups/key informant interviews; (II) cognitive interviews; and (III) a statewide population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: In Phases I-II, clinic-based data and cancer center registries were used to identify CRC survivors who had received CRC resection within the past 18 months. In Phase III, survivors who had received CRC resection within the past two years were identified via a statewide, population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: In Phase I, 16 survivors participated in focus groups at two National Cancer Center-affiliated sites (response rate=29.6%). Eighteen additional survivors participated in individual interviews (response rate=50%). In Phase II, 11 survivors participated in cognitive interviews (response rate=81.8%). In Phase III, 150 survivors participated in the statewide survey (response rate=62.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Group-based/in-person recruitment efforts were unsuccessful due to scheduling barriers, lack of transportation, and remaining discomfort from previous resection surgery. Telephone-based data collection strategies produced higher response rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To enhance CRC surveillance research, future studies could incorporate CRC survivor-centered recruitment strategies.
Authors: Jean G Ford; Mollie W Howerton; Gabriel Y Lai; Tiffany L Gary; Shari Bolen; M Chris Gibbons; Jon Tilburt; Charles Baffi; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Renee F Wilson; Neil R Powe; Eric B Bass Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Mark C Hornbrook; Paul A Fishman; Debra P Ritzwoller; Maureen C O'Keeffe Rossetti; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Marvella Ford; Eduard Gamito; Darlene Higgins; Victoria Jenkins; Lois Lamerato; Sally Tenorio; Pamela M Marcus; John K Gohagan Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Jeff K Vallance; Dean T Eurich; Paul A Gardiner; Lorian M Taylor; Gillian Stevens; Steven T Johnson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Marvella E Ford; Katherine R Sterba; Kent Armeson; Angela M Malek; Kendrea D Knight; Jane Zapka Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.771