4.5 Article

Recruiting Chinese Americans for dementia caregiver intervention research: Suggestions for success

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 676-683

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/01.JGP.0000221234.65585.f9

关键词

Chinese American caregivers; community outreach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of three recruitment modalities for enrolling Chinese-American and white family caregivers into research studies to evaluate intervention strategies. Methods: A total of 116 Chinese Americans and 134 whites were screened for eligibility to participate in one of two clinical intervention trials. Participants were recruited using: 1) media sources; 2) nonprofessional referral sources; or 3) professional referrals. Each participant was asked an open-ended question about how they became aware of the programs offered. Results: A smaller proportion of Chinese Americans (39u than whites (50%) who responded to recruiting strategies actually enrolled as subjects. There was a significant interaction between ethnicity and recruitment strategy. Chinese-American caregivers who were recruited by nonprofessional sources were less likely to enroll in the intervention studies than those who were recruited through media sources or professional referrals. Whites, on the other hand, were more likely to be recruited through nonprofessional sources than the other two. Conclusions: A consumer-oriented approach, which included direct face-to-face contact with key community leaders, generated the highest number of Chinese-American participants. Culture-specific factors such as trust-building with social service agencies, demonstrating genuine commitment to the well-being of the target community, and linguistic and ethnic matching between research staff and potential participants appear helpful to successful research recruitment in this rapidly increasing segment of dementia caregivers.

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

4.5
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