Literature DB >> 30930462

Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse recruitment methods for a genetic screening study.

Hila Milo Rasouly1, Julia Wynn2, Maddalena Marasa1, Rachel Reingold1, Debanjana Chatterjee1, Sheena Kapoor1, Stacy Piva1, Byum Hee Kil1, Xueru Mu1, Maria Alvarez1, Jordan Nestor1, Karla Mehl1, Anya Revah-Politi3, Natalie Lippa3, Michelle E Ernst3, Louise Bier3, Aileen Espinal2, Bianca Haser2, Anoushka Sinha4, Ian Halim4, David Fasel5, Nicole Cuneo1, Jacqueline J Thompson4, Miguel Verbitsky1, Elizabeth G Cohn6, Jill Goldman6, Karen Marder6, Robert L Klitzman7, Manuela A Orjuela2,8, Yat S So5, Alex Fedotov9, Katherine D Crew1, Krzysztof Kiryluk1, Paul S Appelbaum7, Chunhua Weng5, Karolynn Siegel10, Ali G Gharavi1, Wendy K Chung11,12.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recruitment of participants from diverse backgrounds is crucial to the generalizability of genetic research, but has proven challenging. We retrospectively evaluated recruitment methods used for a study on return of genetic results.
METHODS: The costs of study design, development, and participant enrollment were calculated, and the characteristics of the participants enrolled through the seven recruitment methods were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 1118 participants provided consent, a blood sample, and questionnaire data. The estimated cost across recruitment methods ranged from $579 to $1666 per participant and required a large recruitment team. Recruitment methods using flyers and staff networks were the most cost-efficient and resulted in the highest completion rate. Targeted sampling that emphasized the importance of Latino/a participation, utilization of translated materials, and in-person recruitments contributed to enrolling a demographically diverse sample.
CONCLUSIONS: Although all methods were deployed in the same hospital or neighborhood and shared the same staff, each recruitment method was different in terms of cost and characteristics of the enrolled participants, suggesting the importance of carefully choosing the recruitment methods based on the desired composition of the final study sample. This analysis provides information about the effectiveness and cost of different methods to recruit adults for genetic research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost-efficiency; genomic research; personalized medicine; recruitment methods; socioeconomic diversity

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30930462      PMCID: PMC7213972          DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0497-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.864


  34 in total

1.  Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines.

Authors:  K Malterud
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-08-11       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  A systematic review of strategies that increase the recruitment and retention of African American adults in genetic and genomic studies.

Authors:  Vanessa A Johnson; Yolanda M Powell-Young; Elisa R Torres; Ida J Spruill
Journal:  ABNF J       Date:  2011

3.  Challenges and strategies in recruiting, interviewing, and retaining recent Latino immigrants in substance abuse and HIV epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Mario De La Rosa; Rosa Babino; Adelaida Rosario; Natalia Valiente Martinez; Lubna Aijaz
Journal:  Am J Addict       Date:  2011-12-15

Review 4.  Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions.

Authors:  Stacy J UyBico; Shani Pavel; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Barriers and strategies for sustained participation of African-American men in cohort studies.

Authors:  Cathrine Hoyo; M LaVerne Reid; Paul A Godley; Theodore Parrish; Lenora Smith; Marilie Gammon
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.847

6.  Influence of genetic discrimination perceptions and knowledge on cancer genetics referral practice among clinicians.

Authors:  Katrina J Lowstuter; Sharon Sand; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Kimberly C Banks; Carol A Lee; Barbara U Schwerin; Margaret Juarez; Gwen C Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Patient characteristics and participation in a genetic study: a type 2 diabetes cohort.

Authors:  Loabat Amiri; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Heather Dakki; Jia Li; Karen Wells; Susan A Oliveria; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Abraham Thomas; David E Lanfear
Journal:  J Investig Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Using community-based participatory research principles to develop more understandable recruitment and informed consent documents in genomic research.

Authors:  Harlyn G Skinner; Larissa Calancie; Maihan B Vu; Beverly Garcia; Molly DeMarco; Cam Patterson; Alice Ammerman; Jonathan C Schisler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Cost and yield considerations when expanding recruitment for genetic studies: the primary open-angle African American glaucoma genetics study.

Authors:  Rebecca Salowe; Laura O'Keefe; Sayaka Merriam; Roy Lee; Naira Khachatryan; Prithvi Sankar; Eydie Miller-Ellis; Amanda Lehman; Victoria Addis; Windell Murphy; Jeffrey Henderer; Maureen Maguire; Joan O'Brien
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Gillian W Hooker; Philip D Connors; Travis C Hyams; Martha F Wright; Samantha Caldwell; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  4 in total

1.  Comparison of Web-Based Advertising and a Social Media Platform as Recruitment Tools for Underserved and Hard-to-Reach Populations in Rheumatology Clinical Research.

Authors:  Vladislav Tsaltskan; Katherine Nguyen; Christina Eaglin; V Michael Holers; Kevin D Deane; Gary S Firestein
Journal:  ACR Open Rheumatol       Date:  2022-05-10

2.  An electronic health record (EHR) log analysis shows limited clinician engagement with unsolicited genetic test results.

Authors:  Jordan G Nestor; Alexander Fedotov; David Fasel; Maddalena Marasa; Hila Milo-Rasouly; Julia Wynn; Wendy K Chung; Ali Gharavi; George Hripcsak; Suzanne Bakken; Soumitra Sengupta; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2021-03-01

Review 3.  Genetics for all: Tri-directional research engagement as an equitable framework for international partnerships.

Authors:  Thalia Billawala; Toluwani Taiwo; Neil A Hanchard
Journal:  HGG Adv       Date:  2022-09-12

4.  GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing.

Authors:  Hila Milo Rasouly; Nicole Cuneo; Maddalena Marasa; Natalia DeMaria; Debanjana Chatterjee; Jacqueline J Thompson; David A Fasel; Julia Wynn; Wendy K Chung; Paul Appelbaum; Chunhua Weng; Suzanne Bakken; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-12-26       Impact factor: 2.537

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.