Recruitment and retention strategies and the examination of attrition bias in a randomised controlled trial in children's centres serving families in disadvantaged areas of England

Paul Hindmarch, Adrian Hawkins, Elaine McColl, Mike Hayes, Gosia Majsak-Newman, Joanne Ablewhite, Toity Deave, Denise Kendrick, Keeping Children Safe study group, Paul Hindmarch, Adrian Hawkins, Elaine McColl, Mike Hayes, Gosia Majsak-Newman, Joanne Ablewhite, Toity Deave, Denise Kendrick, Keeping Children Safe study group

Abstract

Background: Failure to retain participants in randomised controlled trials and longitudinal studies can cause significant methodological problems. We report the recruitment and retention strategies of a randomised controlled trial to promote fire-related injury prevention in families with pre-school children attending children's centres in disadvantaged areas in England.

Methods: Thirty-six children's centres were cluster randomised into one of three arms of a 12-month fire-related injury prevention trial. Two arms delivered safety interventions and there was one control arm. Retention rates compared the numbers of participants responding to the 12-month questionnaire to the number recruited to the trial. Multivariable random effects logistic regression was used to explore factors independently associated with participant retention.

Results: The trial exceeded its required sample size through the use of multiple recruitment strategies. All children's centres remained in the study, despite increased reorganisation. Parent retention was 68% at 12 months, ranging from 65% to 70% across trial arms and from 62% to 74% across trial sites. There was no significant difference in the rates of retention between trial arms (p = 0.58) or between trial sites (p = 0.16). Retention was significantly lower amongst mothers aged 16-25 years than older mothers [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.41, 0.78], those living in non-owner occupied accommodation than in owner occupied accommodation (AOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38, 0.73) and those living in more disadvantaged areas (most versus least disadvantaged quintiles AOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30, 0.82).

Conclusions: Studies recruiting disadvantaged populations should measure and report attrition by socioeconomic factors to enable determination of the extent of attrition bias and estimation of its potential impact on findings. Where differential attrition is anticipated, consideration should be given to over-sampling during recruitment and targeted and more intensive strategies of participant retention in these sub-groups. In transient populations collection of multiple sources of contact information at recruitment and throughout the study may aid retention.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01452191 ; Date of registration: 10 October 2011, ISRCTN65067450.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of parent participants through trial.

References

    1. Nicholson LM, Schwirian PM, Klein EG, Skybo T, Murray-Johnson L, Eneli I, et al. Recruitment and retention strategies in longitudinal clinical studies with low income populations. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:353–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.01.007.
    1. Robinson KA, Dennison CR, Wayman DM, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM. Systematic review identifies number of strategies for retaining study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;60:757–65.
    1. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. Issue 3. Art. No.: MR000008. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4.
    1. Schoeppe S, Oliver M, Badland HM, Burke M, Duncan MJ. Recruitment and retention of children in behavioral health risk factor studies: REACH Strategies. Int J Behav Med. Published online 3rd October 2013. doi:10.1007/s12529-013-9347-5.
    1. Davis LL, Broome ME, Cox RP. Maximizing Retention in Community-based Clinical Trials. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002;34(1):47–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00047.x.
    1. Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: MR000032. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub2.
    1. Deave T, Towner E, McColl E, Reading R, Sutton A, Coupland C, et al. Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating implementation of a fire prevention injury prevention briefing in children’s centres: study protocol. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:69. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-69.
    1. Deave T, Goodenough T, Stewart J, Towner E, Majsak-Newman G, Hawkins A, et al. Contemporary hazards in the home: keeping children safe from thermal injuries. Arch Dis Child. 2013;98(7):485–9. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2012-302901.
    1. Tansey CM, Matte AL, Needham D, Herridge MS. Review of retention strategies in longitudinal studies and application follow-up of ICU survivors. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:2051–7. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0817-6.
    1. Boys A, Marsden J, Stillwell G, Hatchings K, Griffiths P, Farrell M. Minimising respondent attrition in longitudinal research: Practical implications from a cohort study of adolescent drinking. J Adolesc. 2003;26:363–73. doi: 10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00011-3.
    1. Lee SS, August GJ, Bloomquist ML, Mathy R, Realmuto GM. Implementing an evidence based preventative intervention in neighbourhood family centres: Examination of perceived barriers to program participation. J Prim Prev. 2006;27(6):573–97. doi: 10.1007/s10935-006-0060-x.
    1. Cepeda A, Valdez A. Ethnographic strategies in the tracking and retention of street-recruited community-based samples of substance using hidden populations in longitudinal studies. Subst Use Misuse. 2010;45:700–16. doi: 10.3109/10826081003591282.
    1. Aitken LM, Pelter MM, Carlson B, Marshal AP, Cross R, McKinley S, et al. Effective strategies for implementing a multicentre international clinical trial. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2008;40(2):101–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00213.x.
    1. McFarlane J. Strategies for successful recruitment and retention of abused women for longitudinal studies. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2007;28:883–97. doi: 10.1080/01612840701493527.
    1. Mills CA, Pederson LL, Koval JJ, Gushue SM, Aubut JL. Longitudinal tracking and retention in a school-based study on smoking: Cost, variables, and smoking status. J Sch Health. 2000;70(3):107–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2000.tb06455.x.
    1. Walker J, Fairley CK, Urban E, Chen MY, Bradshaw C, Walker SM, et al. Maximising retention in a longitudinal study of genital Chlamydia trachiomatis among young women in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:156. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-156.
    1. McDonald AM, Treweek S, Shakur H, Free C, Knight R, Speed C, et al. Using a business model approach and marketing techniques for recruitment to clinical trials. Trials. 2011;12:74. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-74.
    1. Adubato S, Alper R, Heenehan M, Rodreguez-Mayor R, Elsafty M. Successful ways to increase retention in a longitudinal study of lead exposed children. Health Soc Work. 2003;28(4):312–5. doi: 10.1093/hsw/28.4.312.
    1. Claasen C, Kurian B, Trivedi M, Grannemann BD, Tuli E, Pipes R, et al. Telephone based assessments to minimise missing data in longitudinal depression trials: A project IMPACTS study report. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:13–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.08.001.
    1. Wright CM, Parkinson KN, Drewett RF. The influence of maternal socioeconomic and emotional factors on infant weight gain and weight faltering (failure to thrive): data from a prospective birth cohort. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91:312–7. doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.077750.
    1. Waylen A, Stallard N, Stewart-Brown S. Parenting and health in mid-childhood: a longitudinal study. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18(3):300–5. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckm131.
    1. Bor W, Najman JM, Andersen M, Morrison J, Williams G. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child morbidity: An Australian longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36(8):1053–61. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90123-L.
    1. English indices of deprivation 2010. []
    1. GeoConvert. []
    1. Office of National Statistics. []
    1. . []
    1. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. []
    1. Mychasiuk R, Benzies K. Facebook: An effective tool for participant retention in longitudinal research. Child Care Health Dev. 2011;38(5):753–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01326.x.
    1. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Twyman L, Bryant J, Brozek I, et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:42. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-42.
    1. Hertz-Picciotto I, Cassady D, Lee K, Bennett DH, Ritz B, Vogt R. Study of use of products and exposure-related behaviors (SUPERB): study design, methods, and demographic characteristics of cohorts. Environ Health. 2010;9:54. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-9-54.
    1. Dowswell T, Towner E. Social deprivation and the prevention of unintentional injury in childhood: a systematic review. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(2):221–37. doi: 10.1093/her/17.2.221.
    1. Laflamme L, Hasselberg M, Burrows S. 20 years of research on socioeconomic inequality and children's—unintentional injuries understanding the cause-specific evidence at hand. Int J Pediatr. 2010: 819687. Published online Jul 25, 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/819687.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever