Enrique C Leira1,2, Catherine M Viscoli3, Linnea A Polgreen4, Mark Gorman5, Walter N Kernan3. 1. Colleges of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 2. Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 3. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 4. Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 5. Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical trials often seek to enroll patients from both urban and rural areas to safeguard the generalizability of results. However, maintaining contact with patients who live away from a recruitment site, including rural areas, can be challenging. In this research we examine the effect of distance between patient and study centers on treatment adherence and retention. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 2,466 participants in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial who were enrolled from research sites in the United States. Driving distance between the zipcodes of patient's reported place of residence and the study center was calculated. Outcome measures were loss to follow-up, completion of annual in-person visits, adherence to preventive therapy, and adherence to study drug in the first 3 years of participation. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Distance from residence to research center was not associated with loss to follow-up, adherence to study drug, or adherence to preventive therapy (p > 0.05 for each). However, patients who lived farther from the research center (>120 miles), compared to patients who lived closer (<60 miles), were less likely to complete the second annual in-person visit (62 vs. 81%; adjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31-0.75) and third visit (53 vs. 75%; adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Distance between patient and study center was an independent predictor of missed in-person visits but not with adherence to study treatment or preventive care.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical trials often seek to enroll patients from both urban and rural areas to safeguard the generalizability of results. However, maintaining contact with patients who live away from a recruitment site, including rural areas, can be challenging. In this research we examine the effect of distance between patient and study centers on treatment adherence and retention. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 2,466 participants in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial who were enrolled from research sites in the United States. Driving distance between the zipcodes of patient's reported place of residence and the study center was calculated. Outcome measures were loss to follow-up, completion of annual in-person visits, adherence to preventive therapy, and adherence to study drug in the first 3 years of participation. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Distance from residence to research center was not associated with loss to follow-up, adherence to study drug, or adherence to preventive therapy (p > 0.05 for each). However, patients who lived farther from the research center (>120 miles), compared to patients who lived closer (<60 miles), were less likely to complete the second annual in-person visit (62 vs. 81%; adjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31-0.75) and third visit (53 vs. 75%; adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Distance between patient and study center was an independent predictor of missed in-person visits but not with adherence to study treatment or preventive care.
Authors: Enrique C Leira; Diane L Lamb; Andrew S Nugent; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Karla J Grimsman; William R Clarke; Harold P Adams Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lucy Busija; Lingwei William Tao; Danny Liew; Louise Weir; Bernard Yan; Gabriel Silver; Stephen Davis; Peter J Hand Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Walter N Kernan; Catherine M Viscoli; Karen L Furie; Lawrence H Young; Silvio E Inzucchi; Mark Gorman; Peter D Guarino; Anne M Lovejoy; Peter N Peduzzi; Robin Conwit; Lawrence M Brass; Gregory G Schwartz; Harold P Adams; Leo Berger; Antonio Carolei; Wayne Clark; Bruce Coull; Gary A Ford; Dawn Kleindorfer; John R O'Leary; Mark W Parsons; Peter Ringleb; Souvik Sen; J David Spence; David Tanne; David Wang; Toni R Winder Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tharshanah Thayabaranathan; Dominique A Cadilhac; Velandai K Srikanth; Sharyn M Fitzgerald; Roger G Evans; Joosup Kim; Richard P Gerraty; Thanh G Phan; Christopher F Bladin; Mark R Nelson; Judith H Frayne; Amanda G Thrift Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; M Alan Brookhart; John Z Ayanian; Jeffrey N Katz; Seoyoung C Kim; Joyce Lii; Chris Tonner; Edward Yelin; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Sarah T Pendlebury; Ping-Jen Chen; Sarah J V Welch; Fiona C Cuthbertson; Rose M Wharton; Ziyah Mehta; Peter M Rothwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Thomas M Shiovitz; Earle E Bain; David J McCann; Phil Skolnick; Thomas Laughren; Adam Hanina; Daniel Burch Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Helena C Frawley; Kuan-Yin Lin; Catherine L Granger; Rosemary Higgins; Michael Butler; Linda Denehy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.603