Recruitment Methods, Inclusion, and Successful Participation in a Longitudinal Clinical Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Education & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-26 DOI:10.1177/10901981231210520
Norman Porticella, Julie S Cannon, Chung Li Wu, Stuart G Ferguson, James F Thrasher, Emily E Hackworth, Jeff Niederdeppe
{"title":"Recruitment Methods, Inclusion, and Successful Participation in a Longitudinal Clinical Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.","authors":"Norman Porticella, Julie S Cannon, Chung Li Wu, Stuart G Ferguson, James F Thrasher, Emily E Hackworth, Jeff Niederdeppe","doi":"10.1177/10901981231210520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Underrepresentation of historically marginalized populations in clinical trials continues to threaten the validity of health intervention research. Evidence supports the merits of intercept and other proactive forms of recruitment for achieving more equitable representation. However, researchers also report lower retention and adherence to protocols among these populations, particularly in longitudinal studies. Few studies have compared recruitment methods for longitudinal randomized trials testing health interventions, with even fewer having done so for trials involving ecological momentary assessment (EMA). As intervention research integrates EMA and other data collection approaches requiring substantial participant effort, it is critical to better understand the effectiveness and implications of strategies to improve the representativeness of health research. This secondary data analysis compared outcomes of proactive and reactive recruitment strategies (mobile lab intercepts and internet/flyer advertising, respectively) in study inclusion, task completion, and retention within a 14-day randomized controlled trial that used EMA to evaluate cigarette package health messages. Proactive recruitment resulted in higher proportions of participants with low income and education, limited health literacy, and of diverse racial/ethnic makeup. However, this recruitment method also resulted in lower task completion, especially in the second week of the trial period, and lower retention, although group differences were not explained by participant sociodemographic characteristics targeted by inclusion efforts. We conclude that proactive recruitment via intercepts is an effective strategy for health intervention research that aims to include stakeholders from historically marginalized groups but that researchers and funders must recognize these methods require additional resources, considerations, and capacity to address non-trivial challenges to successful participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12974,"journal":{"name":"Health Education & Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"280-290"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10980577/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981231210520","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Underrepresentation of historically marginalized populations in clinical trials continues to threaten the validity of health intervention research. Evidence supports the merits of intercept and other proactive forms of recruitment for achieving more equitable representation. However, researchers also report lower retention and adherence to protocols among these populations, particularly in longitudinal studies. Few studies have compared recruitment methods for longitudinal randomized trials testing health interventions, with even fewer having done so for trials involving ecological momentary assessment (EMA). As intervention research integrates EMA and other data collection approaches requiring substantial participant effort, it is critical to better understand the effectiveness and implications of strategies to improve the representativeness of health research. This secondary data analysis compared outcomes of proactive and reactive recruitment strategies (mobile lab intercepts and internet/flyer advertising, respectively) in study inclusion, task completion, and retention within a 14-day randomized controlled trial that used EMA to evaluate cigarette package health messages. Proactive recruitment resulted in higher proportions of participants with low income and education, limited health literacy, and of diverse racial/ethnic makeup. However, this recruitment method also resulted in lower task completion, especially in the second week of the trial period, and lower retention, although group differences were not explained by participant sociodemographic characteristics targeted by inclusion efforts. We conclude that proactive recruitment via intercepts is an effective strategy for health intervention research that aims to include stakeholders from historically marginalized groups but that researchers and funders must recognize these methods require additional resources, considerations, and capacity to address non-trivial challenges to successful participation.

使用生态瞬时评估的纵向临床试验的招募方法、纳入和成功参与。
历史上边缘化人群在临床试验中的代表性不足继续威胁着健康干预研究的有效性。证据支持拦截和其他主动招聘形式在实现更公平代表性方面的优点。然而,研究人员也报告说,在这些人群中,特别是在纵向研究中,对协议的保留和遵守程度较低。很少有研究比较检验健康干预措施的纵向随机试验的招募方法,涉及生态瞬时评估(EMA)的试验就更少了。由于干预研究整合了EMA和其他需要大量参与者努力的数据收集方法,因此更好地了解提高卫生研究代表性的战略的有效性和影响至关重要。在一项使用EMA评估卷烟包装健康信息的为期14天的随机对照试验中,该次要数据分析比较了主动和被动招募策略(分别为移动实验室拦截和互联网/传单广告)在研究纳入、任务完成和保留方面的结果。主动招募的结果是,低收入和受教育程度低、卫生知识有限以及种族/族裔构成多样化的参与者比例较高。然而,这种招募方法也导致了较低的任务完成率,特别是在试用期的第二周,以及较低的保留率,尽管小组差异不能用纳入努力所针对的参与者社会人口特征来解释。我们的结论是,通过拦截进行主动招募是一种有效的健康干预研究策略,旨在将历史上边缘化群体的利益相关者包括在内,但研究人员和资助者必须认识到,这些方法需要额外的资源、考虑因素和能力,以解决成功参与的重要挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Education & Behavior
Health Education & Behavior PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Health Education & Behavior is the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE). The journal publishes authoritative and practical information on critical health issues for a broad range of professionals interested in understanding factors associated with health behavior and health status, and strategies to improve social and behavioral health. The journal is interested in articles directed toward researchers and/or practitioners in health behavior and health education. Empirical research, case study, program evaluation, literature reviews, and articles discussing theories are regularly published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信