Christina H Park1, Marianne Winglee2, Jennifer Kwan3, Linda Andrews4, Mark L Hudak5. 1. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Westat, Rockville, Maryland. 3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Social & Scientific Systems Inc, Silver Spring, Maryland; and. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine - Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida mark.hudak@jax.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2000, the US Congress authorized the National Institutes of Health to conduct a prospective national longitudinal study of environmental influences on children's health and development from birth through 21 years. Several recruitment methodologies were piloted to determine the optimal strategy for a main National Children's Study. METHODS: After an initial pilot recruitment that used a household enumeration strategy performed poorly, the National Children's Study Vanguard Study developed and evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and cost of 4 alternate strategies to recruit a large prospective national probability sample of pregnant women and their newborn children. We compare household-based recruitment, provider-based recruitment, direct outreach, and provider-based sampling (PBS) strategies with respect to overall recruitment success, efficiency, cost, and fulfillment of scientific requirements. RESULTS: Although all 5 strategies achieved similar enrollment rates (63%-81%) among eligible women, PBS achieved the highest recruitment success as measured by the ratio of observed-to-expected newborn enrollees per year of 0.99, exceeding those of the other strategies (range: 0.35-0.48). Because PBS could reach the enrollment target through sampling of high volume obstetric provider offices and birth hospitals, it achieved the lowest ratio of women screened to women enrolled and was also the least costly strategy. With the exception of direct outreach, all strategies enrolled a cohort of women whose demographics were similar to county natality data. CONCLUSIONS: PBS demonstrated the optimal combination of recruitment success, efficiency, cost, and population representativeness and serves as a model for the assembly of future prospective probability-based birth cohorts.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2000, the US Congress authorized the National Institutes of Health to conduct a prospective national longitudinal study of environmental influences on children's health and development from birth through 21 years. Several recruitment methodologies were piloted to determine the optimal strategy for a main National Children's Study. METHODS: After an initial pilot recruitment that used a household enumeration strategy performed poorly, the National Children's Study Vanguard Study developed and evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and cost of 4 alternate strategies to recruit a large prospective national probability sample of pregnant women and their newborn children. We compare household-based recruitment, provider-based recruitment, direct outreach, and provider-based sampling (PBS) strategies with respect to overall recruitment success, efficiency, cost, and fulfillment of scientific requirements. RESULTS: Although all 5 strategies achieved similar enrollment rates (63%-81%) among eligible women, PBS achieved the highest recruitment success as measured by the ratio of observed-to-expected newborn enrollees per year of 0.99, exceeding those of the other strategies (range: 0.35-0.48). Because PBS could reach the enrollment target through sampling of high volume obstetric provider offices and birth hospitals, it achieved the lowest ratio of women screened to women enrolled and was also the least costly strategy. With the exception of direct outreach, all strategies enrolled a cohort of women whose demographics were similar to county natality data. CONCLUSIONS:PBS demonstrated the optimal combination of recruitment success, efficiency, cost, and population representativeness and serves as a model for the assembly of future prospective probability-based birth cohorts.
Authors: Laura L Blaisdell; Jennifer A Zellner; Alison A King; Elaine Faustman; Mari Wilhelm; Mark L Hudak; Robert D Annett Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Vincent W V Jaddoe; Cock M van Duijn; Albert J van der Heijden; Johan P Mackenbach; Henriëtte A Moll; Eric A P Steegers; Henning Tiemeier; Andre G Uitterlinden; Frank C Verhulst; Albert Hofman Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Donald B Bailey; Lisa M Gehtland; Megan A Lewis; Holly Peay; Melissa Raspa; Scott M Shone; Jennifer L Taylor; Anne C Wheeler; Michael Cotten; Nancy M P King; Cynthia M Powell; Barbara Biesecker; Christine E Bishop; Beth Lincoln Boyea; Martin Duparc; Blake A Harper; Alex R Kemper; Stacey N Lee; Rebecca Moultrie; Katherine C Okoniewski; Ryan S Paquin; Denise Pettit; Katherine Ackerman Porter; Scott J Zimmerman Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Peter K Gilbertson; Susan Forrester; Linda Andrews; Kathleen McCann; Lydia Rogers; Christina Park; Jack Moye Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-03-05