4.1 Article

Recruitment methods for survey research: Findings from the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 50-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2017.08.006

关键词

Response rates; Patient selection; Surveys and Questionnaires; Information storage and retrieval

资金

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) [CDRN-1306-04869, ME 1306-03342]
  2. National Institutes of Health [NCATS-ULTR000445, NCAT-SU24TR001579, AHRQ-K12HS022990, NHLBI-K23HL127104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The objective of this study was to report survey response rates and demographic characteristics of eight recruitment approaches to determine acceptability and effectiveness of large-scale patient recruitment among various populations. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional analysis of survey data from two large cohorts. Patients were recruited from the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network using clinic-based recruitment, research registries, and mail, phone, and email approaches. Response rates are reported as patients who consented for the survey divided by the number of eligible patients approached. Results: We contacted more than 90,000 patients and 13,197 patients completed surveys. Median age was 56.3 years (IQR 40.9, 67.4). Racial/ethnic distribution was 84.1% White, non-Hispanic; 9.9% Black, non Hispanic; 1.8% Hispanic; and 4.0% other, non-Hispanic. Face-to-face recruitment had the highest response rate of 94.3%, followed by participants who opted-in to a registry (76%). The lowest response rate was for unsolicited emails from the clinic (6.1%). Face-to-face recruitment enrolled a higher percentage of participants who self-identified as Black, non-Hispanic compared to other approaches (18.6% face-to-face vs. 8.4% for email). Conclusions: Technology-enabled recruitment approaches such as registries and emails are effective for recruiting but may yield less racial/ethnic diversity compared to traditional, more time-intensive approaches.

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