Dataset Information

Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants.

ABSTRACT: The retention of participants in studies is important for the validity of research. We updated our prior systematic review (2005) to assess retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies.We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Embase (August 2013) for English-language reports of studies that described retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. We abstracted each retention strategy, and two authors independently classified each retention strategy with one of the themes developed in our prior review.We identified 88 studies (67 newly identified studies), six of which were designed to compare retention strategies, whereas the remainder described retention strategies and retention rates. There were 985 strategies abstracted from the descriptive studies (617 from new studies), with a median (interquartile range) number of strategies per study of 10 (7 to 17) and a median (interquartile range) number of themes per study of 6 (4 to 7). Financial incentives were used in 47 (57%) of the descriptive studies. We classified 28% of the strategies under the theme of "contact and scheduling methods," with 83% of the identified studies using at least one strategy within this theme. The number of strategies used was positively correlated with retention rate (P = 0.027), but the number of themes was not associated with retention rate (P = 0.469).The number of studies describing retention strategies has substantially increased since our prior review. However, the lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity in the types of strategies, participant population and study designs, prohibits synthesis to determine the types of cohort retention strategies that were most effective. However, using a larger number of retention strategies, across five or six different themes, appears to retain more study participants.

SUBMITTER: Robinson KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4658250 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants.

Robinson Karen A KA Dinglas Victor D VD Sukrithan Vineeth V Yalamanchilli Ramakrishna R Mendez-Tellez Pedro A PA Dennison-Himmelfarb Cheryl C Needham Dale M DM

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20150610 12

<h4>Background and objective</h4>The retention of participants in studies is important for the validity of research. We updated our prior systematic review (2005) to assess retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Embase (August 2013) for English-language reports of studies that described retention strateg ...[more]

PMID: 26186981

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment and retention challenges are very common in mental health randomised trials. Investigators utilise different methods to improve recruitment or retention. However, evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies in mental health has not been synthesised. This systematic review is to investigate and assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies to improve recruitment and retention in mental health randomised trials.Methods and materialsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and PsycINFO were searched from beginning of record up to July 2016. Randomised trials involving participants with mental health problems which compared different strategies for recruitment or retention were selected. Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility.ResultsA total of 5,157 citations were identified. Thirteen articles were included, 11 on recruitment and 2 on retention. Three randomised controlled trials compared different recruitment strategies, none of which found statistically significant differences between the interventional recruitment strategies and the routine recruitment methods. Retrospective comparisons of recruitment methods showed that non-web-based advertisement and recruitment by clinical research staff each have advantages in efficiency. Web-based adverts had the lowest cost per person recruited (£13.41 per person recruited). Specialised care referral cost £183.24 per person, non-web-based adverts cost £372.03 per patient and recruitment via primary care cost £407.65 for each patient. Financial incentives, abridged questionnaires and pre-notification had a positive effect on retention rates.ConclusionThe recruitment studies included showed differences in strategies, clinical settings, mental health conditions and study design. It is difficult to assess the overall effectiveness of any particular recruitment strategy as some strategies that worked well for a particular population may not work as well for others. Paying attention to the accessibility of information and consent materials may help improve recruitment. More research in this area is needed given its important implications.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution may increase stroke risk, but the results remain inconsistent. Evidence of more recent studies is highly warranted, especially gas air pollutants.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies till February 2020 and conducted a meta-analysis on the association between air pollution (PM2.5, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 μm; PM10, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 μm; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; SO2, sulfur dioxide; CO, carbon monoxide; O3, ozone) and stroke (hospital admission, incidence, and mortality). Fixed- or random-effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR)/hazard ratio (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a 10 μg/m3 increase in air pollutant concentration.ResultsA total of 68 studies conducted from more than 23 million participants were included in our meta-analysis. Meta-analyses showed significant associations of all six air pollutants and stroke hospital admission (e.g., PM2.5: OR = 1.008 (95% CI 1.005, 1.011); NO2: OR = 1.023 (95% CI 1.015, 1.030), per 10 μg/m3 increases in air pollutant concentration). Exposure to PM2.5, SO2, and NO2 was associated with increased risks of stroke incidence (PM2.5: HR = 1.048 (95% CI 1.020, 1.076); SO2: HR = 1.002 (95% CI 1.000, 1.003); NO2: HR = 1.002 (95% CI 1.000, 1.003), respectively). However, no significant differences were found in associations of PM10, CO, O3, and stroke incidence. Except for CO and O3, we found that higher level of air pollution (PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and NO2) exposure was associated with higher stroke mortality (e.g., PM10: OR = 1.006 (95% CI 1.003, 1.010), SO2: OR = 1.006 (95% CI 1.005, 1.008).ConclusionsExposure to air pollution was positively associated with an increased risk of stroke hospital admission (PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, CO, and O3), incidence (PM2.5, SO2, and NO2), and mortality (PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and NO2). Our study would provide a more comprehensive evidence of air pollution and stroke, especially SO2 and NO2.

Project description:BackgroundRecruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email or text-messaging, could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated.ResultsWe identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, Internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text-messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people's attitudes towards the use of digital tools.ConclusionsThis systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research.RegistrationNot registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project's Advisory Board.

Project description:BackgroundQuestionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.ObjectivesUpdate the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study's the risk of bias.MethodsInclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates.Study designrandomised controlled trails.Exclusion criteriaNA.Data sourcesStudies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy.Data extractiondata was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach.ResultsOne hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20-1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99-1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results.ConclusionsUsing the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates.FundingEconomic and Social Research Council.PreregistrationNone.

Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesSources searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, C2-SPECTR, ERIC, PreMEDLINE, Cochrane Methodology Register, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, WHO trials platform, Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) conference proceedings and a survey of all UK clinical trial research units.Review methodsIncluded trials were randomised evaluations of strategies to improve retention embedded within host randomised trials. The primary outcome was retention of trial participants. Data from trials were pooled using the fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses were used to explore the heterogeneity and to determine whether there were any differences in effect by the type of strategy.Results38 retention trials were identified. Six broad types of strategies were evaluated. Strategies that increased postal questionnaire responses were: adding, that is, giving a monetary incentive (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28) and higher valued incentives (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22). Offering a monetary incentive, that is, an incentive given on receipt of a completed questionnaire, also increased electronic questionnaire response (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38). The evidence for shorter questionnaires (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08) and questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14) is less clear. On the basis of the results of single trials, the following strategies appeared effective at increasing questionnaire response: recorded delivery of questionnaires (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87); a 'package' of postal communication strategies (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67) and an open trial design (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63). There is no good evidence that the following strategies impact on trial response/retention: adding a non-monetary incentive (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02); offering a non-monetary incentive (RR=0.99; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03); 'enhanced' letters (RR=1.01; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05); monetary incentives compared with offering prize draw entry (RR=1.04; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19); priority postal delivery (RR=1.02; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09); behavioural motivational strategies (RR=1.08; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24); additional reminders to participants (RR=1.03; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06) and questionnaire question order (RR=1.00, 0.97 to 1.02). Also based on single trials, these strategies do not appear effective: a telephone survey compared with a monetary incentive plus questionnaire (RR=1.08; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24); offering a charity donation (RR=1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.32); sending sites reminders (RR=0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11); sending questionnaires early (RR=1.10; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.26); longer and clearer questionnaires (RR=1.01, 0.95 to 1.07) and participant case management by trial assistants (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04).ConclusionsMost of the trials evaluated questionnaire response rather than ways to improve participants return to site for follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increase postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some strategies need further evaluation. Application of these results would depend on trial context and follow-up procedures.

Dataset Information

Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants.

Publications

Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets