Literature DB >> 30689685

Predictors of Response Outcomes for Research Recruitment Through a Central Cancer Registry: Evidence From 17 Recruitment Efforts for Population-Based Studies.

Morgan M Millar1,2, Anita Y Kinney3,4, Nicola J Camp5,6, Lisa A Cannon-Albright1,6, Mia Hashibe2,6,7, David F Penson8,9, Anne C Kirchhoff6,10, Deborah W Neklason1,6, Alicia W Gilsenan11, Gretchen S Dieck12, Antoinette M Stroup4,13,14, Sandra L Edwards2, Carrie Bateman2, Marjorie E Carter2, Carol Sweeney1,2,6.   

Abstract

When recruiting research participants through central cancer registries, high response fractions help ensure population-based representation. We conducted multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to identify case and study characteristics associated with making contact with and obtaining cooperation of Utah cancer cases using data from 17 unique recruitment efforts undertaken by the Utah Cancer Registry (2007-2016) on behalf of the following studies: A Population-Based Childhood Cancer Survivors Cohort Study in Utah, Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation for Prostate Cancer (CEASAR Study), Costs and Benefits of Follow-up Care for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancers, Study of Exome Sequencing for Head and Neck Cancer Susceptibility Genes, Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Impact of Remote Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling (Family CARE Project), Massively Parallel Sequencing for Familial Colon Cancer Genes, Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) Surveillance Study, Osteosarcoma Surveillance Study, Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, Risk Education and Assessment for Cancer Heredity Project (REACH Project), Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis and Tumor Subtyping in High-Risk Breast-Cancer Gene Pedigrees, Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis for Localizing Multiple Myeloma Genes. Characteristics associated with lower odds of contact included Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.41), nonwhite race (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.60), and younger age at contact. Years since diagnosis was inversely associated with making contact. Nonwhite race and age ≥60 years had lower odds of cooperation. Study features with lower odds of cooperation included longitudinal design (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.61) and study brochures (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.90). Increased odds of cooperation were associated with including a questionnaire (OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.54, 6.59), postage stamps (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.12), and incentives (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.57). Among cases not responding after the first contact, odds of eventual response were lower when >10 days elapsed before subsequent contact (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.85). Obtaining high response is challenging, but study features identified in this analysis support better results when recruiting through central cancer registries.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epidemiologic research design; methods; neoplasms; patient participation rates; registries; research subject recruitment; surveys and questionnaires

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30689685      PMCID: PMC6494669          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwz011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  61 in total

1.  Prepayment was superior to postpayment cash incentives in a randomized postal survey among physicians.

Authors:  Gabriel M Leung; Janice M Johnston; Hnin Saing; Keith Y K Tin; Irene O L Wong; Lai-Ming Ho
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Recruiting Hispanic women for a population-based study: validity of surname search and characteristics of nonparticipants.

Authors:  Carol Sweeney; Sandra L Edwards; Kathy B Baumgartner; Jennifer S Herrick; Leslie E Palmer; Maureen A Murtaugh; Antoinette Stroup; Martha L Slattery
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Message Framing and Physical Activity Promotion in Colorectal Cancer Survivors.

Authors:  Rachel Hirschey; Isaac Lipkus; Lee Jones; Christopher Mantyh; Richard Sloane; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Cancer-related chronic pain: examining quality of life in diverse cancer survivors.

Authors:  Carmen R Green; Tamera Hart-Johnson; Deena R Loeffler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Life After Cancer Epidemiology (LACE) Study: a cohort of early stage breast cancer survivors (United States).

Authors:  Bette Caan; Barbara Sternfeld; Erica Gunderson; Ashley Coates; Charles Quesenberry; Martha L Slattery
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Testing three different cancer genetics registry recruitment methods with Hispanic cancer patients and their family members previously registered in local cancer registries in Texas.

Authors:  Amelie G Ramirez; Alexander R Miller; Kipling Gallion; Sandra San Miguel de Majors; Patricia Chalela; Sandra García Arámburo
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2008-04-14

7.  Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Kang-Hsien Fan; Peter C Albertsen; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; R Lawrence Van Horn; David F Penson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Meta association of colorectal cancer confirms risk alleles at 8q24 and 18q21.

Authors:  Karen Curtin; Wei-Yu Lin; Rina George; Mark Katory; Jennifer Shorto; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; D Timothy Bishop; Angela Cox; Nicola J Camp
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Pauline Lockhart; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Kjeldstrøm; Marit Johansen; Taina K Taskila; Frank M Sullivan; Sue Wilson; Catherine Jackson; Ritu Jones; Elizabeth D Mitchell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  The experience of accommodating privacy restrictions during implementation of a large-scale surveillance study of an osteoporosis medication.

Authors:  Kirk D Midkiff; Elizabeth B Andrews; Alicia W Gilsenan; Dennis M Deapen; David H Harris; Maria J Schymura; Francis J Hornicek
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 2.890

View more
  3 in total

1.  Patient-reported financial toxicity, quality of life, and health behaviors in insured US cancer survivors.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Ver Hoeve; Leila Ali-Akbarian; Sarah N Price; Nurhyikmah M Lothfi; Heidi A Hamann
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-05-03       Impact factor: 3.359

2.  The feasibility of web surveys for obtaining patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors: a randomized experiment comparing survey modes and brochure enclosures.

Authors:  Morgan M Millar; Joanne W Elena; Lisa Gallicchio; Sandra L Edwards; Marjorie E Carter; Kimberly A Herget; Carol Sweeney
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Utilizing SEER Cancer Registries for Population-Based Cancer Survivor Epidemiologic Studies: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Lisa Gallicchio; Joanne W Elena; Sarah Fagan; Marjorie Carter; Ann S Hamilton; Theresa A Hastert; Lisa L Hunter; Jie Li; Charles F Lynch; Joel Milam; Morgan M Millar; Denise Modjeski; Lisa E Paddock; Amanda R Reed; Lisa B Moses; Antoinette M Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Edward J Trapido; Michele M West; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Kathy J Helzlsouer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 4.254

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.