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

Melissa A Valerio, Natalia Rodriguez, Paula Winkler, Jaime Lopez, Meagen Dennison, Yuanyuan Liang, Barbara J Turner, Melissa A Valerio, Natalia Rodriguez, Paula Winkler, Jaime Lopez, Meagen Dennison, Yuanyuan Liang, Barbara J Turner

Abstract

Background: Effective 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.

Methods: In 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.

Results: Of 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.

Conclusions: In 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.

Keywords: Chronic pain; Community-based participatory research; Research methods; Sampling studies; Vulnerable populations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Two Sampling Methods

References

    1. Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, Krist AH. Authentic engagement of patients and communities can transform research, practice, and policy. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(4):590–4. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1512.
    1. Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer. 2008;112(2):228–42. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23157.
    1. Institute of Medicine . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2001.
    1. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.11100.
    1. George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(2):e16–31. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706.
    1. Cowan K, Oliver S. The James Lind Alliance guidebook version 6. 2016. . Accessed 20 Sept 2016
    1. Minkler M. Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1):S81–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720.
    1. Kwon S, Rideout C, Tseng W, et al. Developing the community empowered research training program: building research capacity for community-initiated and community-driven research. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012;6(1):43–52. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2012.0010.
    1. Hefland M, Berg A, Flum, D, Gabriel, S, Normand, SL. Draft methodology report: “Our questions, our decisions: standards for patient-centered outcomes research” PCORI Methodology Committee. Available at . Accessed 26 Feb 2013.
    1. O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, LaBrant L, Most C, Lee K, et al. Engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize future research needs. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHCo44-EF.
    1. Fowler F. Applied social research methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2014.
    1. Gilmore GD, Campbell D. Needs and capacity assessment strategies for health education and health promotion. 3rd ed. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2005.
    1. Heckathorn DD. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociol Methodol. 2007;37(1):151–207. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2007.00188.x.
    1. Semaan S, Heckathorn DD, Des Jarlais DC, Garfein RS. Ethical considerations in surveys employing respondent-driven sampling. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(4):582–583. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184200.
    1. Ryan KJ, Brady J, Cooke R, Height D, Jonsen A, King P, et al. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1979.
    1. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathron D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV Surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19:S67–S72. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000172879.20628.e1.
    1. Staniford LJ, Breckon JD, Copeland RJ, Hutchison A. Key stakeholders' perspectives towards childhood obesity treatment: a qualitative study. J Child Health Care. 2011;15(3):230–44.
    1. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven A, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Minneapolis: Scott Foresman Company; 1975.
    1. Gallagher M, Hares T, Spencer J, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam Pract. 1993;10(1):76–81. doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.1.76.
    1. US Census Bureau. QuickFacts Frio County, Texas. . Accessed June 28, 2016.
    1. US Census Bureau. QuickFacts Karnes County, Texas. . Accessed June 28, 2016.
    1. Institute of Medicine . Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education and research. Washington: National Academies Press; 2011.
    1. Turner BJ, Burg FD. A consumer/medical educator conference: new objectives for the medical curriculum. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(5):323–7. doi: 10.1007/BF02596213.
    1. Luborsky MR, Rubinstein RL. Sampling in qualitative research rationale, issues and methods. Res Aging. 1995;17(1):89–113. doi: 10.1177/0164027595171005.
    1. Whitmarsh L, Swartling ÅG, Jäger J. Participation of experts and non-experts in a sustainability assessment of mobility. Environ Policy Gov. 2009;19(4):232–250. doi: 10.1002/eet.513.
    1. Zanini C, Sarzi-Puttini P, Atzeni F, Di Franco M, Rubinelli S. Building bridges between doctors and patients: the design and pilot evaluation of a training session in argumentation for chronic pain experts. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:89. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0374-6.
    1. Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann. 2012;35(2):236–45. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.10.003.
    1. Sadler GR, Lee HC, Lim RS, Fullerton J. Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nurs Health Sci. 2010;12(3):369–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x.
    1. Kendall C, Kerr LR, Gondim RC, et al. An empirical comparison of respondent-driven sampling, time location sampling, and snowball sampling for behavioral surveillance in men who have sex with men, Fortaleza, Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(4 Suppl):S97–104. doi: 10.1007/s10461-008-9390-4.
    1. Carballo-Diéguez A, Balan I, Marone R, et al. Use of respondent driven sampling (RDS) generates a very diverse sample of men who have sex with men (MSM) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027447.
    1. Pascoe SW, Veitch C, Crossland LJ, et al. Patients' experiences of referral for colorectal cancer. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:124. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-14-124.
    1. . Karnes County, Texas (TX). . Accessed June 28, 2016.
    1. . Frio County, Texas (TX). . Accessed June 28, 2016.
    1. Witkin BR, Altschuld JW. Planning and conducting needs assessments: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 1995. pp. 167–171.
    1. Ulin PR, Robinson PE, Tolley EE. Qualitative methods in public health: a field guide for applied research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
    1. Institute of Medicine . Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.
    1. Coye MJ, Aubry WM, Yu W, Health Technology Center . The “tipping point” and health care innovations: Advancing the adoption of beneficial technologies. Washington: National Committee for Quality Health Care; 2003.
    1. Petruney T, Harlan SV, Lanham M, Robinson ET. Increasing support for contraception as HIV prevention: stakeholder mapping to identify influential individuals and their perceptions. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10781. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010781.
    1. Johnston LG, Sabin K. Sampling hard-to-reach populations with respondent driven sampling. Methodol Innov. 2010;5(2):38–48.
    1. MacFarlane A, O'Donnell C, Mair F, et al. REsearch into implementation STrategies to support patients of different ORigins and language background in a variety of European primary care settings (RESTORE): study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7:111. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-111.
    1. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186. doi: 10.3310/hta5050.
    1. Firth H, Todd A, Bambra C. Benefits and barriers to the public health pharmacy: A qualitative exploration of providers' and commissioners' perceptions of the Healthy Living Pharmacy framework. Perspect Public Health. 2015;135(5):251–6. doi: 10.1177/1757913915579457.
    1. Carter-Edwards L, Lowe-Wilson A, Mouw MS, et al. Community member and stakeholder perspectives on a healthy environment initiative in North Carolina. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E127. doi: 10.5888/pcd12.140595.
    1. Gibbs L, Waters E, de Silva A, et al. An exploratory trial implementing a community-based child oral health promotion intervention for Australian families from refugee and migrant backgrounds: a protocol paper for Teeth Tales. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004260. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004260.
    1. Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):77–100. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292430.
    1. Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(1):416–30. doi: 10.2307/800824.
    1. Barendregt C, van der Poel A, van de Mheen D. Tracing selection effects in three non-probability samples. Eur Addict Res. 2005;11(3):124–31. doi: 10.1159/000085547.
    1. Neille J, Penn C. Beyond physical access: a qualitative analysis into the barriers to policy implementation and service provision experienced by persons with disabilities living in a rural context. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15(3):3332.
    1. Hadland SE, DeBeck K, Kerr T, Feng C, Montaner JS, Wood E. Prescription opioid injection and risk of hepatitis C in relation to traditional drugs of misuse in a prospective cohort of street youth. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e005419. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005419.
    1. Cooke M, Emery H, Brimelow R, Wollin J. The impact of therapeutic massage on adult residents living with complex and high level disabilities: a brief report. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(4):730–4. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.04.009.
    1. Simmonds MJ, Finley EP, Vale S, Pugh MJ, Turner BJ. A qualitative study of veterans on long-term opioid analgesics: barriers and facilitators to multimodality pain management. Pain Med. 2015;16(4):726–32. doi: 10.1111/pme.12626.
    1. McCrorie C, Closs SJ, House A et al. Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:121. doi: 10.1186/s12875-015-0335-5.
    1. Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC Guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain--United States, 2016. JAMA. 2016;315(15):1624–45. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.1464.
    1. Patton MQ. Qualitative research methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2002.
    1. United States Department of Labor. Fact sheet: general facts on women and job based health. . 2013. Accessed 23 Feb 2016.
    1. Parsons JA, Mamdani M, Bhattacharyya O, Fortin CM, Melo M, Salmon C, et al. Narcotic analgesic utilization amongst injured workers: using concept mapping to understand current issues from perspectives of physicians and pharmacists. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:280. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-280.
    1. Auerswald CL, Greene K, Minnis A, Doherty I, Ellen J, Padian N. Qualitative assessment of venues for purposive sampling of hard-to-reach youth. Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31(2):133–138. doi: 10.1097/01.OLQ.0000109513.30732.B6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi