Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting

Abstract

BackgroundEffective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified.MethodsIn two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities’ stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community.ResultsOf 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05). Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the snowball sampling group.ConclusionsIn each of the two similar hard-to-reach communities, a community advisory board partnered with researchers to implement a different sampling method to recruit stakeholders. The snowball sampling method achieved greater participation with more Hispanics but also more individuals with disabilities than a purposive-convenience sampling method. However, priorities for research on chronic pain from both stakeholder groups were similar. Although utilizing a snowball sampling method appears to be superior, further research is needed on implementation costs and resources.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient‐centered prioritization of bladder cancer research

“…Priorities expressed by these hard‐to‐reach patient populations (eg, Internet barriers and low literacy) may differ from those expressed by the current PSN. Although we targeted increased racial and ethnic diversity for year 2 and we applied several methods to improve engagement among minority groups, diversity in the BCAN PSN was lacking. We directed advertisements to health systems and support groups with higher percentages of minority groups and approached the affiliated providers.…”

Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model of Consistent Condom Use among Transgender Women in Shenyang, China

“…Snowball sampling [30,31] was used for recruitment because TGW in China are hard to reach and hidden due to the universal discrimination. The participants were recruited through a nongovernmental organization (NGO), China Love Aid, which dedicated to improving the physiological and psychological health of TGW.…”

Culture and organisational context: how it influences voice behaviour

“…Second, to increase the sample size, data was collected using snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is an effective manner to receive data in situations where members are harder to reach, for instance when surveys concern sensitive questions (Valerio et al, 2016). As voice behaviour is classified as a sensitive topic, these sampling methods were regarded as most appropriate (Hirschman, 1970).…”