4.1 Article

Recruitment of Men Into a Pragmatic Rural Primary Care Weight Loss Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MENS HEALTH
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1557988320971917

关键词

recruitment; recruitment response; men; behavioral weight loss

资金

  1. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute [OTO-1402-09413]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Men remain underrepresented in behavioral weight loss trials and are more difficult to recruit compared to women. We describe recruitment response of men and women into a mixed-gender behavioral weight loss trial conducted within 36 rural primary care clinics. Participants were recruited through primary care clinics via direct mailings (n = 15,076) and in-clinic referrals by their primary care provider (PCP). Gender differences were examined in response rate to direct mailings, study referral source, and rates of proceeding to study screening, being eligible, and enrolling. Men had a lower response rate to direct mailings than women (7.8% vs. 17.7%, p < .001). Men (vs. women) responding to the mailing were more likely to respond by opt-in postcard (64.6% vs. 56.8%) and less likely to respond by phone (33.9% vs. 39.6%), p = .002. Among potential participants contacting the study (n = 2413), men were less likely to report being referred by PCPs (15.2% vs. 21.6%; p < .001), but were just as likely to proceed to screening, be eligible, and enroll. Men and women were more likely to proceed to screening when referred by PCPs (93.3% vs. 95.4%) compared to direct mailings (74.2% vs. 73.9%). Enrolled men were older (p < .001), more likely to be married (p = .04), and had higher levels of education (p = .01). Men were less likely than women to respond to direct mailings and to be referred by their PCP, but after contacting the study, had similar screening, eligibility, and enrollment rates. Encouraging and training providers to refer men during clinic visits may help recruit more men into primary care-based weight loss trials.

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

4.1
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