4.4 Article

Factors differentiating dropouts from completers in a longitudinal, multicenter clinical trial

期刊

NURSING RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 109-116

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00006199-200003000-00008

关键词

CPR training; longitudinal studies; subject dropout

类别

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [R01NR002434] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NINR NIH HHS [R01 NR 02434] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Subject dropout from a prospective, longitudinal trial can produce biases in the remaining sample that affect study findings and their interpretation, yet little is known about factors contributing to dropout. Objective: To determine characteristics differentiating those who complete from those who drop out of a longitudinal multicenter clinical trial. Methods: In this study, 578 parents and other caretakers of infants at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest enrolled in a longitudinal trial investigating the psychosocial impact of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training. In this secondary analysis, the baseline sociodemographic, emotional, psychosocial, and infant characteristics of those who dropped from the trial were compared with those who completed the study. Results:The study was completed by 60% (n = 347) of the participants. Those most likely to drop out were fathers or other caretakers (vs. mothers) employed outside the home who spoke English (vs. Spanish); were assigned to an experimental group (vs. a control group); had higher levels of depression, hostility, and overall psychosocial distress; and held negative views about health care. Conclusion: Although a few sociodemographic characteristics differentiated dropouts from completers, personal, emotional and psychosocial factors were the predominant predictors of dropouts. Other reputed sources of retention difficulties (e.g., income, education, minority status, lack of social support, or problems with family functioning) did not predict dropout.

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

4.4
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