Sarah-Jeanne Salvy1, Kristine Carandang2, Cheryl Lp Vigen3, Alyssa Concha-Chavez4, Paola A Sequeira5, Jeanine Blanchard3, Jesus Diaz3, Jennifer Raymond6, Elizabeth A Pyatak3. 1. Research Center for Health Equity, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, USA. 2. University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Northern Arizona University, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 5. Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Research is needed to identify promising recruitment strategies to reach and engage diverse young adults in diabetes clinical research. The aim of this study was to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of three recruitment strategies used in a diabetes self-management clinical trial: social media advertising (Facebook), targeted mailing, and in-person solicitation of clinic patients. METHODS: Strategies were compared in terms of (1) cost-effectiveness (i.e. cost of recruitment/number of enrolled participants), (2) ability to yield participants who would not otherwise be reached by alternative strategies, and (3) likelihood of participants recruited through each strategy to adhere to study procedures. We further explored the appeal (overall and among age and gender subgroups) of social media advertisement features. RESULTS: In-person recruitment of clinic patients was overall the most cost-effective strategy. However, differences in demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of participants recruited via different strategies suggest that the combination of these approaches yielded a more diverse sample than would any one strategy alone. Once successfully enrolled, there was no difference in study completion and intervention adherence between individuals recruited by the three recruitment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, the utility of a recruitment strategy is defined by its ability to effectively attract people representative of the target population who are willing to enroll in and complete the study. Leveraging a variety of recruitment strategies appears to produce a more representative sample of young adults, including those who are less engaged in diabetes care.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Research is needed to identify promising recruitment strategies to reach and engage diverse young adults in diabetes clinical research. The aim of this study was to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of three recruitment strategies used in a diabetes self-management clinical trial: social media advertising (Facebook), targeted mailing, and in-person solicitation of clinic patients. METHODS: Strategies were compared in terms of (1) cost-effectiveness (i.e. cost of recruitment/number of enrolled participants), (2) ability to yield participants who would not otherwise be reached by alternative strategies, and (3) likelihood of participants recruited through each strategy to adhere to study procedures. We further explored the appeal (overall and among age and gender subgroups) of social media advertisement features. RESULTS: In-person recruitment of clinic patients was overall the most cost-effective strategy. However, differences in demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of participants recruited via different strategies suggest that the combination of these approaches yielded a more diverse sample than would any one strategy alone. Once successfully enrolled, there was no difference in study completion and intervention adherence between individuals recruited by the three recruitment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, the utility of a recruitment strategy is defined by its ability to effectively attract people representative of the target population who are willing to enroll in and complete the study. Leveraging a variety of recruitment strategies appears to produce a more representative sample of young adults, including those who are less engaged in diabetes care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus; randomized controlled trials; recruitment; social media
Authors: Katharine C Garvey; Howard A Wolpert; Lori M Laffel; Erinn T Rhodes; Joseph I Wolfsdorf; Jonathan A Finkelstein Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Kathryn S Bryden; David B Dunger; Richard A Mayou; Robert C Peveler; H Andrew W Neil Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Margaret Brown; Marcel P J M Dijkers; Wayne A Gordon; Teresa Ashman; Heather Charatz; Zhifen Cheng Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Jodie L Robinson; Janene H Fuerch; Dana D Winiewicz; Sarah J Salvy; James N Roemmich; Leonard H Epstein Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Stephen P Hinshaw; Kimberly Hoagwood; Peter S Jensen; Christopher Kratochvil; Leonard Bickman; Greg Clarke; Howard B Abikoff; Marc Atkins; Benedetto Vitiello Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Jeanne Charleston; Beiwen Wu; Kelly Gleason; Karen White; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; Daniel E Ford; Timothy B Plante; Allan C Gelber; Lawrence J Appel; Edgar R Miller; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Lisa A Auster-Gussman; Kimberly G Lockwood; Sarah A Graham; Natalie Stein; OraLee H Branch Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Stuart A Weinzimer; Lisa M Fucito; Garrett I Ash; Stephanie Griggs; Laura M Nally; Matthew Stults-Kolehmainen; Sangchoon Jeon; Cynthia Brandt; Barbara I Gulanski; Elias K Spanakis; Julien S Baker; Robin Whittemore Journal: JMIR Diabetes Date: 2021-07-08