BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment is an understudied part of health research. It can be a limiting factor and can affect the external validity of a study. This study compares two recruitment methods, active and passive, used to recruit university seniors into a health promotion study. METHODS: During active recruitment, 3,787 seniors were telephoned and asked to participate. During passive recruitment, 5,644 seniors were mailed literature and asked to respond if interested. RESULTS: During active recruitment, 1,680 h were spent on the phone, 341 participants were measured, and 161 entered the study, at a cost of $79 per participant. During passive recruitment, 970 h were spent on the phone, 238 participants were measured, and 178 entered the study, at a cost of $45 per participant. The active method had a higher recruitment rate (9% vs 4%) and attrition rate (53% vs 25%) than the passive method. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, neither recruitment method was ideal. Those recruited with the passive method reported more physical activity and had lower blood pressures, suggesting a self-selection bias. Active recruitment produced a more representative sample and a higher recruitment rate. Passive recruitment was less expensive and led to a lower attrition rate. Conclusions are limited because these are uncontrolled comparisons, not a controlled study.
BACKGROUND:Participant recruitment is an understudied part of health research. It can be a limiting factor and can affect the external validity of a study. This study compares two recruitment methods, active and passive, used to recruit university seniors into a health promotion study. METHODS: During active recruitment, 3,787 seniors were telephoned and asked to participate. During passive recruitment, 5,644 seniors were mailed literature and asked to respond if interested. RESULTS: During active recruitment, 1,680 h were spent on the phone, 341 participants were measured, and 161 entered the study, at a cost of $79 per participant. During passive recruitment, 970 h were spent on the phone, 238 participants were measured, and 178 entered the study, at a cost of $45 per participant. The active method had a higher recruitment rate (9% vs 4%) and attrition rate (53% vs 25%) than the passive method. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, neither recruitment method was ideal. Those recruited with the passive method reported more physical activity and had lower blood pressures, suggesting a self-selection bias. Active recruitment produced a more representative sample and a higher recruitment rate. Passive recruitment was less expensive and led to a lower attrition rate. Conclusions are limited because these are uncontrolled comparisons, not a controlled study.
Authors: Anjali Gupta; Karen J Calfas; Simon J Marshall; Thomas N Robinson; Cheryl L Rock; Jeannie S Huang; Melanie Epstein-Corbin; Christina Servetas; Michael C Donohue; Gregory J Norman; Fredric Raab; Gina Merchant; James H Fowler; William G Griswold; B J Fogg; Kevin Patrick Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jacinda M Nicklas; Geraldine Skurnik; Chloe A Zera; Liberty G Reforma; Sue E Levkoff; Ellen W Seely Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2016-02
Authors: Christopher Harkins; Rebecca Shaw; Michelle Gillies; Heather Sloan; Kate Macintyre; Anne Scoular; Caroline Morrison; Fiona Mackay; Heather Cunningham; Paul Docherty; Paul Macintyre; Iain N Findlay Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 3.295