Can Lay Community Advisors Improve the Clarity of Research Participant Recruitment Materials and Increase the Likelihood of Participation?

Meteoritics Pub Date : 2017-02-01 Epub Date: 2016-09-30 DOI:10.1002/nur.21752
Barbara Bowers, Nora Jacobson, Anna Krupp
{"title":"Can Lay Community Advisors Improve the Clarity of Research Participant Recruitment Materials and Increase the Likelihood of Participation?","authors":"Barbara Bowers, Nora Jacobson, Anna Krupp","doi":"10.1002/nur.21752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite decades of effort, lower income people and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented as participants in health research. A group of racially and ethnically diverse, lower income community members (Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies: CARDS®) was trained to review study designs and procedures and provide recommendations to researchers for increasing participation and making research materials more understandable to members of underrepresented communities. In this mixed methods study, one participant group (n = 55) was shown research materials (recruitment documents and a consent form) developed by a research team and approved by the local IRB. A second group (n = 45) was shown the same materials after they had also been reviewed and revised by CARDS. Interviews, which included both fixed-response and open-ended questions, were used to assess reactions of participants in both groups to the materials, including their hypothetical willingness to volunteer for the research described. Group differences were examined using the Chi-square distribution test. Proportional difference effect sizes were estimated using arcsine transformation. The qualitative data were subjected to conventional content analysis. Participants in the group shown the recruitment materials revised by CARDS were more likely to say they understood the documents, more likely to ask for more information about the study, and more likely to say they would participate in the research. Results of content analysis suggested a four-phase sequential process for deciding whether to participate in the research. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p>","PeriodicalId":81993,"journal":{"name":"Meteoritics","volume":"1 1","pages":"63-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/nur.21752","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Meteoritics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/9/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Despite decades of effort, lower income people and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented as participants in health research. A group of racially and ethnically diverse, lower income community members (Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies: CARDS®) was trained to review study designs and procedures and provide recommendations to researchers for increasing participation and making research materials more understandable to members of underrepresented communities. In this mixed methods study, one participant group (n = 55) was shown research materials (recruitment documents and a consent form) developed by a research team and approved by the local IRB. A second group (n = 45) was shown the same materials after they had also been reviewed and revised by CARDS. Interviews, which included both fixed-response and open-ended questions, were used to assess reactions of participants in both groups to the materials, including their hypothetical willingness to volunteer for the research described. Group differences were examined using the Chi-square distribution test. Proportional difference effect sizes were estimated using arcsine transformation. The qualitative data were subjected to conventional content analysis. Participants in the group shown the recruitment materials revised by CARDS were more likely to say they understood the documents, more likely to ask for more information about the study, and more likely to say they would participate in the research. Results of content analysis suggested a four-phase sequential process for deciding whether to participate in the research. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

外行社区顾问能提高研究参与者招募材料的清晰度并增加参与的可能性吗?
尽管经过了几十年的努力,低收入人群和少数民族在卫生研究参与者中的代表性仍然不足。一组种族和民族多样化的低收入社区成员(研究设计和策略社区顾问:CARDS®)接受了培训,以审查研究设计和程序,并向研究人员提供建议,以增加参与,使研究材料更容易被代表性不足的社区成员理解。在这项混合方法研究中,一组参与者(n = 55)被展示了由研究小组开发并经当地IRB批准的研究材料(招募文件和同意书)。第二组(n = 45)在用卡片复习和修改后,向他们展示了同样的材料。访谈包括固定回答和开放式问题,用来评估两组参与者对材料的反应,包括他们假设的自愿参与所描述的研究的意愿。组间差异采用卡方分布检验。比例差效应大小用反正弦变换估计。定性数据采用常规的含量分析。看到卡片修改过的招募材料的那组参与者更有可能说他们理解这些文件,更有可能要求更多关于研究的信息,更有可能说他们会参与研究。内容分析的结果表明,决定是否参与研究需要四个阶段的顺序过程。©2016 Wiley期刊公司
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信