4.6 Article

Population- and community-based recruitment of African Americans and Latinos -: The San Francisco Bay Area Lung Cancer Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 158, Issue 3, Pages 272-279

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg138

Keywords

case-control studies; epidemiologic methods; ethnic groups; investigative techniques

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG15272] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES06717] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Empiric data on recruitment of minorities into clinical or population studies are limited. The authors evaluated population- and community-based recruitment methods in a 1998-2001 case-control study of lung cancer among African Americans and Latinos. For lung cancer cases in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, rapid case ascertainment by the tumor registry combined with telephone screening identified 470 (9%) African Americans and 262 (5%) Latinos. When random digit dialing (RDD) and Health Care Financing Administration(HCFA) records failed to yield adequate. numbers of controls in appropriate. age-gender-ethnicity groups, community-based recruitment methods were used. Demographic characteristics and behavioral and occupational risk factors for controls, by recruitment method, were compared with those for lung cancer cases to evaluate potential bias. The average numbers of hours spent per control recruited were 18.6 for RDD, 11.4 for HCFA, and less than 1 for the community-based methods. The prevalence of smoking-related lung cancer risk factors was significantly higher among African-American community-based controls than for those identified through RDP (p<0.005). Compared with HCFA controls, Latino RDD-controls reported significantly higher cumulative smoking exposure (p<0.05). Further assessment of strategies for Successful recruitment of minority participants into epidemiologic studies is warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available