Linda B Cottler1, Catherine W Striley2, Amy L Elliott3, Abigail E Zulich4, Evan Kwiatkowski5, David R Nelson6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, PO Box 100231, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: lbcottler@ufl.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, PO Box 100231, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: cstriley@ufl.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, PO Box 100231, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: amy.elliott@ufl.edu. 4. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, PO Box 100231, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: azulich@ufl.edu. 5. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, PO Box 100231, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: ekwiatkowski@ufl.edu. 6. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, PO Box 100219, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: nelsodr@ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although drug use is common in the population, drug users are sometimes excluded from research without justification. Two models of individualized study matching were compared for effectiveness in enrolling people who "endorsed current drug use" and those who "did not" into appropriate research. METHODS:Participants in the NIDA-funded Transformative Approach to Reduce Research Disparities Towards Drug Users study (Navigation Study) were recruited through a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) community engagement model. Of the 614 community-recruited adults, 326 endorsed current drug use (cases); 288 did not (controls). Participants were randomized to one of two intervention groups: Navigation as Usual (NAU) [individualized study matching through a Study Navigator] or Enhanced Navigation (N+) [individualized study matching plus transportation and other assistance through an Ambassador]. Rates of enrollment into research studies were compared. RESULTS: At 90 days, N+ vs. the NAU intervention was associated with higher enrollment among both drug users (36.0% N+ vs. 24.9% NAU) and non-drug users (45.5% N+ vs. 25.2% NAU). NAU attained the same rate of enrollment for users of drugs (24.9%) and non-users (25.2%); N+ had similar rates as well (36.0% drug users vs. 45.5% non-drug users). In addition, high rates of enrollment were achieved among all groups of participants, from 24.9% (drug users in NAU) to 45.5% (non-drug users in N+). CONCLUSIONS: Both the NAU and N+ methods can reduce barriers and help users and non-users become part of the population that participates in research. Working with the local CTSA adds significant value to the research enterprise.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although drug use is common in the population, drug users are sometimes excluded from research without justification. Two models of individualized study matching were compared for effectiveness in enrolling people who "endorsed current drug use" and those who "did not" into appropriate research. METHODS:Participants in the NIDA-funded Transformative Approach to Reduce Research Disparities Towards Drug Users study (Navigation Study) were recruited through a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) community engagement model. Of the 614 community-recruited adults, 326 endorsed current drug use (cases); 288 did not (controls). Participants were randomized to one of two intervention groups: Navigation as Usual (NAU) [individualized study matching through a Study Navigator] or Enhanced Navigation (N+) [individualized study matching plus transportation and other assistance through an Ambassador]. Rates of enrollment into research studies were compared. RESULTS: At 90 days, N+ vs. the NAU intervention was associated with higher enrollment among both drug users (36.0% N+ vs. 24.9% NAU) and non-drug users (45.5% N+ vs. 25.2% NAU). NAU attained the same rate of enrollment for users of drugs (24.9%) and non-users (25.2%); N+ had similar rates as well (36.0% drug users vs. 45.5% non-drug users). In addition, high rates of enrollment were achieved among all groups of participants, from 24.9% (drug users in NAU) to 45.5% (non-drug users in N+). CONCLUSIONS: Both the NAU and N+ methods can reduce barriers and help users and non-users become part of the population that participates in research. Working with the local CTSA adds significant value to the research enterprise.
Authors: David S Festinger; Douglas B Marlowe; Jason R Croft; Karen L Dugosh; Nicole K Mastro; Patricia A Lee; David S Dematteo; Nicholas S Patapis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-01-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: P N Lara; R Higdon; N Lim; K Kwan; M Tanaka; D H Lau; T Wun; J Welborn; F J Meyers; S Christensen; R O'Donnell; C Richman; S A Scudder; J Tuscano; D R Gandara; K S Lam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L B Cottler; C Leukefeld; J Hoffman; D Desmond; W Wechsberg; J A Inciardi; W M Compton; A Ben Abdallah; R Cunningham-Williams; S Woodson Journal: J Psychoactive Drugs Date: 1998 Jul-Sep
Authors: Linda B Cottler; Donna Jo McCloskey; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Nancy M Bennett; Hal Strelnick; Molly Dwyer-White; Deborah E Collyar; Shaun Ajinkya; Sarena D Seifer; Catina Callahan O'Leary; Catherine W Striley; Bradley Evanoff Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Linda B Cottler; Alan I Green; Harold Alan Pincus; Scott McIntosh; Jennifer L Humensky; Kathleen Brady Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2019-11-25
Authors: Neeta Thakur; Stephanie Lovinsky-Desir; Donna Appell; Christian Bime; Lauren Castro; Juan C Celedón; Juliana Ferreira; Maureen George; Yolanda Mageto; Arch G Mainous III; Smita Pakhale; Kristin A Riekert; Jesse Roman; Elizabeth Ruvalcaba; Sunil Sharma; Priya Shete; Juan P Wisnivesky; Fernando Holguin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 21.405