The Costs of Recruitment and Retention of Women from Community-Based Programs into a Randomized Controlled Contraceptive Study

Abstract

Two hundred and forty five women were identified in recruiting and enrolling 103 study participants involving 1,232 contact-attempts. Self-referral had the highest ratio of referrals to enrollees (55.6%), while this ratio was the lowest for community outreach (33.3%). Retention activities succeeded in maintaining over 90% of the sample. Ninety-two percent of English-speaking participants completed the study versus 79% of Spanish-speaking participants. The time expenditure per enrollee was 10.4 hours for recruitment and 1.2 hours for retention, with an estimated cost per enrollee of $324.03 for recruitment and $39.14 for retention. More retention activities were required to maintain women in the comparison group than in the intervention group.

We should really keep in touch: predictors of the ability to maintain contact with contraception clinical trial participants over 12 months

“…While extensive follow-up may improve participant retention, it can also be time consuming, costly, and may contribute bias. A time and cost analysis of participant retention efforts by Rdesinski et al showed spending approximately 1.2 hours and $39.14 per participant was required for a 90% retention rate in a population of young women of lower socioeconomic status and level of education [10]. In a contraceptive clinical trial, Macaluso et al found that attrition in their study biased results regarding health-related behaviors [11].…”

A review of the key considerations in mental health services research: A focus on low-income children and families.

“…There is some data to suggest that in the context of these structural, psychological, and social factors, members of low-income communities are more likely to enroll in research studies if they are referred to them by a trusted resource, or the study is conducted through a known source or in the context of a familiar agencies (e.g., Women, Infants, and Children), neighborhoods (e.g., subsidized public housing, public schools), and local, state, and federal initiatives that families already use (e.g., Medicaid) (e.g., Rdesinski et al, 2008; Wallace, Berent, McCarthy, Senn, & Carey, 2014; Yancey et al, 2006). When surrounded by unfamiliar research staff, low-income families may be less likely to ask informed questions that would facilitate decision-making regarding participation in services research or to understand and/or adhere to research protocols, preventing them from benefiting from state-of-the-field advances in psychosocial services research (Schillinger, Bindman, Wang, Stewart, & Piette, 2004; Stewart et al, 1999).…”

“…To some extent we know that this “match” occurs for some low incomes families, as those who have previously participated in research studies are more likely to participate in future research (Rdesinski et al, 2008). In addition, offering incentives, defined broadly here to include monetary compensation (e.g., $50/assessment), gift cards (e.g., accessible store or restaurant), meals (e.g., dinner for child and family), and educational materials (e.g., books) may increase the likelihood that low-income families report feeling more valued by researchers and, in turn, more likely to participate (e.g., Heinrich, 2006; Wallace et al, 2014; Yancey et al, 2006).…”

Building a “Deep Fund of Good Will”: Reframing Research Engagement

“…5,7–13 Some researchers applying this knowledge to research engagement report success with the use of specific recruitment strategies for specific populations. 14–17 Others have undertaken systematic reviews of the literature on the topic and point to the effectiveness of community-based strategies including building relationships with community organizations and maintaining community interaction either through community advisory boards or other means. 18–19 Indeed, there is a well established literature on community-based approaches.…”

“…Moreover, community relationship building is intensive work that may be difficult for some projects. 17 Deep interpersonal relationships between participants and research staff are not feasible for all projects due to any number of reasons including limitations of time, resources, and staff. Thus, the practical implementation of community-based approaches is often reported as specific recommended strategies.…”