4.6 Article

Recruitment and Retention of Older Adults in Aging Research

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 2340-2348

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02015.x

关键词

recruitment; retention; aging research

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [K23 AG028943]
  2. Association of Specialty Physicians/American Geriatrics Society T. Franklin Williams Research Scholarship [NIA R01 AG10436, NIA P30 AG021342, NIA P01 AG004390, NIA P60 AG08812, NIA P50 AG005134, P60AG008812, R21 AG027549, R21 AG026566, K07 AG023641, P30 AG024827]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Older adults continue to be underrepresented in clinical research despite their burgeoning population in the United States and worldwide. Physicians often propose treatment plans for older adults based on data from studies involving primarily younger, more-functional, healthier participants. Major barriers to recruitment of older adults in aging research relate to their substantial health problems, social and cultural barriers, and potentially impaired capacity to provide informed consent. Institutionalized older adults offer another layer of complexity that requires cooperation from the institutions to participate in research activities. This paper provides study recruitment and retention techniques and strategies to address concerns and overcome barriers to older adult participation in clinical research. Key approaches include early in-depth planning; minimizing exclusion criteria; securing cooperation from all interested parties; using advisory boards, timely screening, identification, and approach of eligible patients; carefully reviewing the benefit:risk ratio to be sure it is appropriate; and employing strategies to ensure successful retention across the continuum of care. Targeting specific strategies to the condition, site, and population of interest and anticipating potential problems and promptly employing predeveloped contingency plans are keys to effective recruitment and retention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据