3.8 Article

Lessons from prenatal care provider-based recruitment into the National Children's Study

Journal

PEDIATRIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 65-70

Publisher

PAGEPRESS PUBL
DOI: 10.4081/pr.2015.6056

Keywords

National Children's Study; provider-based recruitment; prenatal care; geographic sampling; retention; birth-cohort

Categories

Funding

  1. Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HHSN275200 800026C]
  3. Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute
  4. Pamela Stephens Chair in Birth Defects Research at Arkansas Children's Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In response to recruitment difficulties experienced by the National Children's Study, alternatives to the door-to-door recruitment method were pilot tested. This report describes outcomes, successes, and challenges of recruiting women through prenatal care providers in Benton County, Arkansas, USA. Eligible women residing in 14 randomly selected geographic segments were recruited. Data were collected during pregnancy, at birth, and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postpartum Participants were compared to non-enrolled eligible women through birth records. Of 6402 attempts to screen for address eligibility. 468 patients were potentially eligible. Of 221 eligible women approached to participate, 151 (68%) enrolled in the 21 year study. Enrolled women were similar to non enrolled women in age, marital status. number of prenatal care visits and gestational age and birth weight of the newborn. Women enrolled from public clinics were more likely to be Hispanic, lower educated younger and unmarried than those enrolled from private clinics. Sampling geographic areas from historical birth records failed to produce expected equivalent number of births across segments. Enrollment of pregnant women from prenatal care providers was successful.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available