Lia J Smith1, Patrick J McNamara1, Andrea C King2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, United States. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, United States. Electronic address: aking@bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: Longitudinal studies are integral in addiction research but retention of participants over time can be challenging. While statistical algorithms for missing data have advanced, they remain less desirable than collecting actual data with high retention rates. An update to methodological primers with consideration of evolving technology and privacy concerns is needed for 21st century researchers. METHODS: Comprehensive follow-up methodological strategies were conducted in four concurrent laboratory- and intervention-based studies across N=697 drinker and smokers enrolled in studies at the Clinical Addictions Research Laboratory at the University of Chicago. The methods of three key longitudinal research themes and their outcomes are outlined, including: a) mindset of the research team starting at study enrollment, b) modalities with a particular focus on advances in technological strategies in follow-up, and c) mitigating difficult to reach and challenging participants. RESULTS: The techniques described herein produced follow-up rates of 95% and 99% in two laboratory-based studies with follow-ups of 1- and 6-years, respectively and 94% and 97% in two intervention studies with follow-ups of 6- and 12- months. Adapting incentive strategies more than tripled on-time follow-up, from 18% to 68% of the sample, switching to more advanced technologies decreased participant burden and time by 30% from traditional telephone interviews, and difficult-to-reach participants averaged 47 contact attempts. CONCLUSIONS: The methods presented produced exceptional follow-up retention across four studies. The principles and methodologies discussed may be modified across a range of studies to target various sub-populations in the addiction field.
AIMS: Longitudinal studies are integral in addiction research but retention of participants over time can be challenging. While statistical algorithms for missing data have advanced, they remain less desirable than collecting actual data with high retention rates. An update to methodological primers with consideration of evolving technology and privacy concerns is needed for 21st century researchers. METHODS: Comprehensive follow-up methodological strategies were conducted in four concurrent laboratory- and intervention-based studies across N=697 drinker and smokers enrolled in studies at the Clinical Addictions Research Laboratory at the University of Chicago. The methods of three key longitudinal research themes and their outcomes are outlined, including: a) mindset of the research team starting at study enrollment, b) modalities with a particular focus on advances in technological strategies in follow-up, and c) mitigating difficult to reach and challenging participants. RESULTS: The techniques described herein produced follow-up rates of 95% and 99% in two laboratory-based studies with follow-ups of 1- and 6-years, respectively and 94% and 97% in two intervention studies with follow-ups of 6- and 12- months. Adapting incentive strategies more than tripled on-time follow-up, from 18% to 68% of the sample, switching to more advanced technologies decreased participant burden and time by 30% from traditional telephone interviews, and difficult-to-reach participants averaged 47 contact attempts. CONCLUSIONS: The methods presented produced exceptional follow-up retention across four studies. The principles and methodologies discussed may be modified across a range of studies to target various sub-populations in the addiction field.
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: M D Resnick; P S Bearman; R W Blum; K E Bauman; K M Harris; J Jones; J Tabor; T Beuhring; R E Sieving; M Shew; M Ireland; L H Bearinger; J R Udry Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dawson E Mills; Krista R Schaefer; Julie A Beans; Michael R Todd; Renee F Robinson; Kenneth E Thummel; Denise A Dillard; Jaedon P Avey Journal: Am Indian Alsk Native Ment Health Res Date: 2022
Authors: Andrea King; Ashley Vena; Deborah S Hasin; Harriet deWit; Sean J O'Connor; Dingcai Cao Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 19.242
Authors: Eleanor Ladd Schneider Leavens; Elise Marie Stevens; Emma Irene Brett; Neil Molina; Thad Ryan Leffingwell; Theodore Lee Wagener Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.428