Catherine Stewart1, Hannah Kopinski2, Jane Liebschutz2, Inga Holmdahl2, Julia Keosaian1, Debra Herman3, Bradley Anderson3, Michael Stein4. 1. Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Behavioral Medicine and Addictions Research, Butler Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 4. Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: mdstein@bu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of drug-using populations often restrict enrollment by limiting participation to those with a working telephone. It is unknown whether supplying phones could broaden recruitment and sustain retention among an urban population of people who inject drugs (PWID). We compare the feasibility of offering pay-by-month phones to gift card compensation as part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial of hospitalized PWID. METHODS:Participants were recruited from inpatient services at an urban hospital in Boston, MA to participate in an ongoing randomized trial testing amotivational interviewing (MI) intervention. Participants who did not have their own phone at the time of enrollment were offered a pay-by-month phones as compensation for study participation. RESULTS:Eighty-one participants met study criteria, were enrolled, and completed the study at the time of analysis. We used a generalized estimating equation to compare the overall likelihood of attending interviews during the 12-month follow-up period. Participants receiving phones tended to have lower mean educational attainment (11.4 years vs. 12.1 years), were significantly (Fisher's exact p < 0.001) more likely to report homelessness during the past 90 days (86.7% vs. 37.3%), and were significantly less likely (Fisher's exact p = .044) to be employed (3.3% vs. 20.4%) compared to those receiving gift cards. Participants in each group were equally likely to attend follow-up interviews during the study (83.3% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Offering phones as a compensation method allows recruitment of a more disenfranchised population without impacting study retention and therefore may improve generalizability of study results.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies of drug-using populations often restrict enrollment by limiting participation to those with a working telephone. It is unknown whether supplying phones could broaden recruitment and sustain retention among an urban population of people who inject drugs (PWID). We compare the feasibility of offering pay-by-month phones to gift card compensation as part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial of hospitalized PWID. METHODS:Participants were recruited from inpatient services at an urban hospital in Boston, MA to participate in an ongoing randomized trial testing a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention. Participants who did not have their own phone at the time of enrollment were offered a pay-by-month phones as compensation for study participation. RESULTS: Eighty-one participants met study criteria, were enrolled, and completed the study at the time of analysis. We used a generalized estimating equation to compare the overall likelihood of attending interviews during the 12-month follow-up period. Participants receiving phones tended to have lower mean educational attainment (11.4 years vs. 12.1 years), were significantly (Fisher's exact p < 0.001) more likely to report homelessness during the past 90 days (86.7% vs. 37.3%), and were significantly less likely (Fisher's exact p = .044) to be employed (3.3% vs. 20.4%) compared to those receiving gift cards. Participants in each group were equally likely to attend follow-up interviews during the study (83.3% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Offering phones as a compensation method allows recruitment of a more disenfranchised population without impacting study retention and therefore may improve generalizability of study results.
Authors: Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Robert P Schwartz; Anika A H Alvanzo; Monique S Weisman; Tiffany L Kyle; Eva M Turrigiano; Martha L Gibson; Livangelie Perez; Erin A McClure; Sara Clingerman; Autumn Froias; Danielle R Shandera; Robrina Walker; Dean L Babcock; Genie L Bailey; Gloria M Miele; Lynn E Kunkel; Michael Norton; Maxine L Stitzer Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Shannon R Kenney; Kristina T Phillips; Debra S Herman; Julia Keosaian; Bradley J Anderson; Michael D Stein Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2020 May/Jun Impact factor: 4.647
Authors: Alison M El Ayadi; Hadija Nalubwama; Justus K Barageine; Suellen Miller; Susan Obore; Othman Kakaire; Abner Korn; Felicia Lester; Nadia G Diamond-Smith; Haruna Mwanje; Josaphat Byamugisha Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2020-10-08