Retaining participants in community-based health research: a case example on standardized planning and reporting

Nicole L A Catherine, Rosemary Lever, Lenora Marcellus, Corinne Tallon, Debbie Sheehan, Harriet MacMillan, Andrea Gonzalez, Susan M Jack, Charlotte Waddell, Nicole L A Catherine, Rosemary Lever, Lenora Marcellus, Corinne Tallon, Debbie Sheehan, Harriet MacMillan, Andrea Gonzalez, Susan M Jack, Charlotte Waddell

Abstract

Background: Effective strategies for participant retention are critical in health research to ensure validity, generalizability and efficient use of resources. Yet standardized guidelines for planning and reporting on retention efforts have been lacking. As with randomized controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review (SR) protocols, retention protocols are an opportunity to improve transparency and rigor. An RCT being conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada provides a case example for developing a priori retention frameworks for use in protocol planning and reporting.

Methods: The BC Healthy Connections Project RCT is examining the effectiveness of a nurse home-visiting program in improving child and maternal outcomes compared with existing services. Participants (N = 739) were girls and young women preparing to parent for the first time and experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Quantitative data were collected upon trial entry during pregnancy and during five follow-up interviews until participants' children reached age 2 years. A framework was developed to guide retention of this study population throughout the RCT. We reviewed relevant literature and mapped essential retention activities across the study planning, recruitment and maintenance phases. Interview completion rates were tracked.

Results: Results from 3302 follow-up interviews (in-person/telephone) conducted over 4 years indicate high completion rates: 90% (n = 667) at 34 weeks gestation; and 91% (n = 676), 85% (n = 626), 80% (n = 594) and 83% (n = 613) at 2, 10, 18 and 24 months postpartum, respectively. Almost all participants (99%, n = 732) provided ongoing consent to access administrative health data. These results provide preliminary data on the success of the framework.

Conclusions: Our retention results are encouraging given that participants were experiencing considerable socioeconomic disadvantage. Standardized retention planning and reporting may therefore be feasible for health research in general, using the framework we have developed. Use of standardized retention protocols should be encouraged in research to promote consistency across diverse studies, as now happens with RCT and SR protocols. Beyond this, successful retention approaches may help inform health policy-makers and practitioners who also need to better reach, engage and retain underserved populations.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01672060. Registered on 24 August 2012.

Keywords: Adolescents; Attrition; Pregnancy; Randomized controlled trial; Retention; Socioeconomic disadvantage.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Ecological participant retention model. Adapted from Shumaker et al. and Marcellus, and applied by Meneses et al. and Salihu et al. [, –43]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Participant interview schedule and completion rates

References

    1. Magnusson D, Cairns RB. Developmental science: toward a unified framework. In: Cairns RB, Elder H, Costello EJ, editors. Developmental Science. New York; Cambridge University Press. 1996:7–30.
    1. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15:399. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-399.
    1. Buscemi J, Blumstein L, Kong A, Stolley MR, Schiffer L, Odoms-Young A, et al. Retaining traditionally hard to reach participants: lessons learned from three childhood obesity studies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:98–104. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.03.014.
    1. Odierna DH, Schmidt LA. The effects of failing to include hard-to-reach respondents in longitudinal surveys. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(8):1515–1520. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.111138.
    1. Timpe Z, Winokur M. Integrating retention rates into economic analyses of prevention interventions. Prev Sci. 2019;20:566–574. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0958-6.
    1. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, 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. Brueton V, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:1–126.
    1. Brueton V, Tierney J, Stenning S, Rait G. Identifying additional studies for a systematic review of retention strategies in randomised controlled trials: making contact with trials units and trial methodologists. Syst Rev. 2017;6:167. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0549-9.
    1. Shaghaghi A, Bhopal RS, Sheikh A. Approaches to recruiting “hard-to-reach” populations into research: a review of the literature. Health Promot Perspect. 2011;1(2):86–94.
    1. Flanagan SM, Hancock B. “Reaching the hard to reach”—lessons learned from the VCS (voluntary and community sector): a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:92. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-92.
    1. Heaman MI, Green CG, Newburn-Cook CV, Elliott LJ, Helewa ME. Social inequalities in use of prenatal care in Manitoba. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(10):806–816. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32637-8.
    1. Quinn C, Byng R, Shenton D, Smart C, Michie S, Stewart A, et al. The feasibility of following up prisoners, with mental health problems, after release: a pilot trial employing an innovative system, for engagement and retention in research, with a harder-to-engage population. Trials. 2018;19:530. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2911-1.
    1. Debessai Y, Costanian C, Roy M, El-Sayed M, Tamim H. Inadequate prenatal care use among Canadian mothers: findings from the Maternity Experiences Survey. J Perinatol. 2016;36:420–426. doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.218.
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health . Common agenda for public health action on health equity. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University; 2016.
    1. Flick SN. Managing attrition in clinical research. Clin Psychol Rev. 1988;8(5):499–515. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(88)90076-1.
    1. Liu Y, Pencheon E, Hunter RM, Moncrieff J, Freemantle N. Recruitment and retention strategies in mental health trials—a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0203127. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203127.
    1. El Feky A, Gillies K, Gardner H, Fraser C, Treweek S. A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention to randomised controlled trials. Syst Rev. 2018;7:30. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0696-7.
    1. Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, Brueton V, Devane D, Elliott J, et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: The PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2019;20:593. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3687-7.
    1. Teague S, Youssef GJ, Macdonald JA, Sciberras E, Shatte A, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, et al. Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:151. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7.
    1. Gillies K, Bower P, Elliott J, MacLennan G, Newlands RSN, Ogden M, et al. Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol. Trials. 2018;19:197. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2572-0.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:834–840. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005.
    1. Chan A, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–207. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:e1–e37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004.
    1. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Antes G, Atkins D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e100097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. Meneses KM, Benz RL, Hassey LA, Yang ZQ, McNees MP. Strategies to retain rural breast cancer survivors in longitudinal research. Appl Nurs Res. 2013;26:257–262. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2013.08.001.
    1. Scott CK. A replicable model for achieving over 90% follow-up rates in longitudinal studies of substance abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:21–36. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.11.007.
    1. Catherine N, Gonzalez A, Boyle M, Sheehan D, Jack SM, Hougham KA, et al. Improving children’s health and development in British Columbia through nurse home visiting: a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:349. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1594-0.
    1. Catherine NLA, Lever R, Sheehan D, Zheng Y, Boyle MH, McCandless L, et al. The British Columbia Healthy Connections Project: findings on socioeconomic disadvantage in early pregnancy. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1161. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7479-5.
    1. Jack SM, Sheehan D, Gonzalez A, MacMillan HL, Catherine N, Waddell C. British Columbia Healthy Connections Project process evaluation: a mixed methods protocol to describe the implementation and delivery of the Nurse–Family Partnership in Canada. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:47. doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0097-3.
    1. Gonzalez A, Catherine N, Boyle M, Jack SM, Atkinson L, Kobor M, et al. Healthy Foundations Study: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate biological embedding of early-life experiences. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e018915. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018915.
    1. Olds DL. Preventing child maltreatment and crime with prenatal and infancy support of parents: the Nurse–Family Partnership. J Scand Stud Criminol Crime Prev. 2008;9(S1):2–24. doi: 10.1080/14043850802450096.
    1. Mejdoubi J, Van Den Heijkant S, Van Leerdam FJM, Heymans MW, Crijnen A, Hirasing RA. The effect of VoorZorg, the Dutch Nurse–Family Partnership, on child maltreatment and development: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0120182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120182.
    1. Robling M, Bekkers MJ, Bell K, Butler CC, Cannings-John R, Channon S, et al. Effectiveness of a nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (Building Blocks): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):146–155. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00392-X.
    1. Olds DL, Baca P, McClatchey M, Ingoldsby EM, Luckey DW, Knudtson MD, et al. Cluster randomized controlled trial of intervention to increase participant retention and completed home visits in the Nurse–Family Partnership. Prev Sci. 2015;16:778–788. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0563-x.
    1. Abshire M, Dinglas VD, Cajita MIA, Eakin MN, Needham DM, Himmelfarb CD. Participant retention practices in longitudinal clinical research studies with high retention rates. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:30. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0310-z.
    1. Olds D, Henderson CR, Jr, Cole R, et al. Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children's criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280(14):1238–1244. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.14.1238.
    1. Olds DL, Kitzman H, Knudtson MD, Anson E, Smith JA, Cole R. Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(9):800–806. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.472.
    1. Tallon C. Application of evidence- or theory-based retention strategies in health-related research involving “hard-to-reach” or “vulnerable” populations: a systematic review. Simon Fraser University. 2016. . Accessed 10 Mar 2020.
    1. Robinson KA, Dennison CR, Wayman DM, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM. Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:757–765. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.023.
    1. Marcellus L. Are we missing anything? Pursuing research on attrition. Can J Nurs Res. 2004;36(3):83–98.
    1. Shumaker SA, Dugan E, Bowen DJ. Enhancing adherence in randomized controlled clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:226S–232S. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00083-0.
    1. Salihu HM, Wilson RE, King LM, Marty PJ, Whiteman VE. Socio-ecological model as a framework for overcoming barriers and challenges in randomized control trials in minority and underserved communities. Int J MCH AIDS. 2015;3(1):85–95.
    1. Strategy for patient-oriented research. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2017. . Accessed 11 Mar 2020.
    1. Involve. 2017. . Accessed 11 Mar 2020.
    1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. 2018. . Accessed 11 Mar 2020.
    1. Graziotti AL, Hammond J, Messinger DS, Bann CM, Miller-Loncar C, Twomey JE, et al. Maintaining participation and momentum in longitudinal research involving high-risk families. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2012;44(2):120–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2012.01439.x.
    1. McGregor L, Parker K, LeBlanc P, King KM. Using social exchange theory to guide successful study recruitment and retention. Nurse Res. 2010;17(2):74–82. doi: 10.7748/nr2010.01.17.2.74.c7464.
    1. Grape A, Rhee H, Wicks M, Tumiel-Berhalter L, Sloand E. Recruitment and retention strategies for an urban adolescent study: lessons learned from a multi-center study of community-based asthma self-management intervention for adolescents. J Adolesc. 2018;65:123–132. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.03.004.
    1. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, Lawton J. “It’s no skin off my nose”: why people take part in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(10):1335–1349. doi: 10.1177/1049732306294511.
    1. Katz K, El-Mohandes A, Mcneely Johnson D, Jarrett M, Rose A, Cober M. Prediction of patient attrition from experimental behavioral interventions. J Community Health. 2001;26:203–218. doi: 10.1023/A:1010373113060.
    1. Cotter RB, Burke JD, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Loeber R. Contacting participants for follow-up: how much effort is required to retain participants in longitudinal studies? Eval Program Plann. 2005;28:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.10.002.
    1. Tansey CM, Matté AL, Needham D, Herridge MS. Review of retention strategies in longitudinal studies and application to follow-up of ICU survivors. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:2051–2057. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0817-6.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzales N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Mitchell SG, Schwartz RP, Alvanzo AAH, Weisman MS, Kyle TL, Turrigiano EM, et al. The use of technology in participant tracking and study retention: lessons learned from a clinical trials network study. Subst Abus. 2015;36(4):420–426. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2014.992565.
    1. Kleschinsky JH, Bosworth LB, Nelson SE, Walsh EK, Shaffer HJ. Persistence pays off: follow-up methods for difficult-to-track longitudinal samples. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70:751–761. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.751.
    1. Yeterian JD, Dow SJ, Kelly JF. Ensuring retention in longitudinal studies: a practical evaluation of an intensive follow-up protocol and suggested adaptations. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2012;15(5):369–383. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.623958.
    1. Haley DF, Lucas J, Golin CE, Wang J, Hughes JP, Emel L, et al. Retention strategies and factors associated with missed visits among low income women at increased risk of HIV acquisition in the US. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2014;28(4):206–217. doi: 10.1089/apc.2013.0366.
    1. Huynh L, Johns B, Liu SH, Vedula SS, Li T, Puhan MA. Cost-effectiveness of health research study participant recruitment strategies: a systematic review. Clin Trials. 2014;11(5):576–583. doi: 10.1177/1740774514540371.
    1. Duncan EM, Bennett T, Gillies K. Assessing effective interventions to improve trial retention: do they contain behaviour change techniques? Trials. 2020;2:213. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4151-4.
    1. Fahim C, Hylton D, Simunovic M, Agzarian J, Finley C, Hanna WC, et al. Development of the IRIS-AR strategy: an intervention to improve rates of accrual and retention for the VTE-PRO randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019;20:447. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3536-8.
    1. Huang GD, Bull J, Johnston McKee K, Mahon E, Harper B, Roberts JN. Clinical trials recruitment planning: a proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;66:74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.01.003.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться