Quantifying Recruitment Source and Participant Communication Preferences for Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Evidence on effective engagement of diverse participants in AD prevention research is lacking.Objectives
To quantify recruitment source in relation to race, ethnicity, and retention.Design
Prospective cohort study.Setting
University lab.Participants
Participants included older adults (N=1170) who identified as White (86%), Black (8%), and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (6%).Measurements
The Cognitive Aging Lab Marketing Questionnaire assessed recruitment source, social media use, and research opportunity communication preferences.Results
Effective recruitment methods and communication preferences vary by race and ethnicity. The most common referral sources were postcards for racial minorities, friend/family referrals for Hispanic/Latinos, and the newspaper for Whites. Whereas Whites preferred email communications, Hispanic/Latinos preferred texts.Conclusions
Recruiting diverse samples in AD prevention research is clinically relevant given high AD-risk of minorities and that health disparities are propagated by their under-representation in research. Our questionnaire and these results may be applied to facilitate effective research engagement.
SUBMITTER: Julbe-Delgado D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8269052 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Recruitment for Alzheimer's disease (AD)-focused studies, particularly prevention studies, is challenging due to the public's lack of awareness about study opportunities coupled with studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in a high screen fail rate. OBJECTIVES:To develop an internet-based participant recruitment registry for efficiently and effectively raising awareness about AD-focused study opportunities and connecting potentially eligible volunteers to studies in their communities. METHODS:Individuals age 18 and older are eligible to join the Alzheimer's Prevention Registry (APR). Individuals provide first and last name, year of birth, country, and zip/postal code to join the APR; for questions regarding race, ethnicity, sex, family history of AD or other dementia, and diagnosis of cognitive impairment, individuals have the option to select "prefer not to answer." The APR website maintains a list of recruiting studies and contacts members who have opted in by email when new studies are available for enrollment. RESULTS:As of December 1, 2019, 346,661 individuals had joined the APR. Members had a mean age of 63.3 (SD 11.7) years and were predominately women (75%). 94% were cognitively unimpaired, 50% reported a family history of AD or other dementia, and of those who provided race, 76% were white. 39% joined the APR as a result of a paid social media advertisement. To date, the APR helped recruit for 82 studies. CONCLUSIONS:The APR is a large, internet-based participant recruitment registry designed to raise awareness about AD prevention research and connect members with enrolling studies in their communities. It has demonstrated the ability to recruit and engage a large number of highly motivated members and assist researchers in meeting their recruitment goals. Future publications will report on the effectiveness of APR for accelerating recruitment and enrollment into AD-focused studies.
| S-EPMC7534299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.MethodsFour focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants' preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.ResultsFour focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.ConclusionResearch participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.
| S-EPMC7348009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article reports on the use of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) in participatory and community-based research. Participant-driven recruitment (PDR) retains all of the analytic capabilities of RDS while enhancing the role of respondents in framing research questions, instrument development, data interpretation, and other aspects of the research process. Merging the capabilities of RDS with participatory research methods, PDR creates new opportunities for engaging community members in research addressing social issues and in utilizing research findings within community contexts. This article outlines PDR's synthesis of RDS and participatory research approaches, describes how PDR is implemented in community contexts, and provides two examples of the use of PDR, illustrating its process, potentials, and challenges.
| S-EPMC1705484 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundEarly study exit is detrimental to statistical power and increases the risk for bias in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials. Previous analyses in early phase academic trials demonstrated associations between rates of trial incompletion and participants' study partner type, with participants enrolling with non-spouse study partners being at greater risk.MethodsWe conducted secondary analyses of two multinational phase III trials of semagacestat, an oral gamma secretase inhibitor, for mild-to-moderate AD dementia. Cox's proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the relationship between study partner type and the risk of early exit from the trial after adjustment for a priori identified potential confounding factors. Additionally, we used a random forest model to identify top predictors of dropout.ResultsAmong participants with spousal, adult child, and other study partners, respectively, 35%, 38%, and 36% dropped out or died prior to protocol-defined study completion, respectively. In unadjusted models, the risk of trial incompletion differed by study partner type (unadjusted p value?=?0.027 for test of differences by partner type), but in models adjusting for potential confounding factors, the differences were not statistically significant (p value?=?0.928). In exploratory modeling, participant age was identified as the primary characteristic to explain the relationship between study partner type and the risk of failing to complete the trial. Participant age was also the strongest predictor of trial incompletion in the random forest model.ConclusionsAfter adjustment for age, no differences in the risk of incompletion were observed when comparing participants with different study partner types in these trials. Differences between our findings and the findings of previous studies may be explained by differences in trial phase, size, geographic regions, or the composition of academic and non-academic sites.
| S-EPMC7791680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the asymptomatic "preclinical" phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), abnormal biomarkers indicate risk for developing cognitive impairment. Biomarker information is increasingly being disclosed to participants in research settings, and biomarker testing and results disclosure will be implemented in clinical settings in the future. Biomarker disclosure has potential psychosocial benefits and harms, impacting affected individuals and their support person(s). Limited data are available about with whom research participants share their results, information that will be necessary to develop disclosure protocols and post-disclosure resources. Additionally, existing research has been conducted in largely White cohorts, limiting applicability to future clinical populations.MethodsWe enrolled a diverse cohort of 329 adults (184 non-Hispanic White and 145 Black/African American individuals) who previously participated in AD research. After reviewing a vignette describing a hypothetical biomarker research study, participants indicated their anticipated willingness to share biomarker results with loved ones, and what reactions they anticipated from others. Using mixed-methods analysis, we identified responses related to willingness to share results.ResultsA majority (78.7%) were willing to share their results with support persons. Many (59.6%) felt it would not be difficult to share, and most (90.6%) believed their loved ones would be supportive. The most common reasons for sharing were to prepare for possible future AD (41.0% of respondents), while the most common reason for not sharing was to avoid worrying loved ones (4.8% of respondents). A total of 7.3% of respondents related reasons regarding being unsure about sharing.DiscussionParticipants' interest in sharing results supports integrating support persons into AD biomarker research, and may help maximize potential benefits for participants. Communicating with this "dyad" of research participant and support person(s) may improve involvement in research, and help prepare for implementation of clinical biomarker testing by clarifying communication preferences and the influence of support persons on psychosocial outcomes.
| S-EPMC10423755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCurrent pharmacological interventions for Alzheimer's dementia delay symptom progression for about a year. Although the outcomes in earlier disease states may include changes in biomarkers, the clinical effectiveness of any intervention can ultimately only be assessed by a patient's self-reported well-being. A better understanding of earlier manifestations of Alzheimer's disease and the drive for relevant outcome measures, allied to technological advances in artificial intelligence, have mediated the electronic Person-Specific Outcome Measure (ePSOM) development program.MethodsThere are 4 sequential stages in the ePSOM development program-(1) literature review, (2) focus group study, (3) national survey, and (4) development of an app for capturing person-specific outcomes. Here, we report the overall approach to the program incorporating our literature review on patient-reported outcome measures and patient preferences in the Alzheimer's disease population.ResultsAlzheimer's disease trials do not use any patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of life measures are often used as proxies for this, but they do not capture individual needs. Therefore, trials currently fail to reflect the participant's aspirations for effect but rather default to clinicostatistical measure of cognition and function. There is no implementation of patient preferences despite evidence that understanding preferences may influence adherence to treatment.DiscussionIt is important to consider preferences for an intervention and use PROMs for the measure of effectiveness given that both risk and benefit are judged by the recipient of the treatment. The ePSOM development program will deliver the methodology for incorporating meaningful outcomes in clinical trials to expand upon current biological and clinical measurements of effectiveness.
| S-EPMC6296160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsPrediabetes and diabetes disproportionately impact Latino youth, yet few diabetes prevention programs have prioritized inclusion of this underrepresented population. This report describes the recruitment process, yields, associated costs, and phenotypic characteristics of Latino youth with obesity and prediabetes enrolled in a randomized controlled diabetes prevention study in the USA.MethodsRecruitment efforts included referrals from clinics, community outlets, local media, and word of mouth with the goal of enrolling 120 Latino adolescents aged 12-16 with obesity (BMI > 95th percentile) and prediabetes. Prediabetes eligibility was determined by any of the following: HbA1c between 5.7 and 6.5%, fasting glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL, or a 2-h glucose between 120 and 199 mg/dL following a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but not meeting any of the diagnostic criteria for diabetes. Eligible participants were randomized 2:1 to either a 6-month community-based lifestyle intervention that included group nutrition and health education classes (1 day/week) and group exercise classes (2 days/week) or usual care control arm. Recruitment yields were determined by review of referral source in the study screening database. Recruitment costs were determined by an after-the-fact financial review of actual and in-kind costs. Participant phenotypic characteristics (i.e., demographics, anthropometrics, and biochemical data) were compared by recruitment strategy using a one-way ANOVA.ResultsRecruitment efforts covered 160 mile2 (414 km2) across 26 ZIP codes (postcode) in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and yielded 655 referrals from clinics (n = 344), community (n = 143), media (n = 137), and word-of-mouth (n = 31). From this pool, 26% (n = 167) did not meet general, pre-screening eligibility criteria; 29% (n = 187) declined participation; and 10% (n = 64) were unable to be contacted. A total of 237 youth were invited to the clinical research unit to determine final eligibility. Following the OGTT, 52% (n = 122) met prediabetes criteria and 117 were subsequently randomized. Clinical recruitment yielded the highest number of referrals (53%; n = 344) while word-of-mouth yielded the highest proportion (35%; n = 11) of randomized participants per referred youth. There were no significant differences in anthropometric or biochemical measures among youth by recruitment strategy. Based upon final enrollment numbers, community recruitment was the costliest approach ($486/randomized participant) followed by clinical ($248/randomized participant) and media ($236/randomized participant).ConclusionsThe ability to meet enrollment goals for a clinical trial of an underrepresented population required multiple recruitment strategies. Although strategies vary in yields and costs, it appears they produce similar phenotypical risk profiles of eligible youth.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615353 . Registered on 26 November 2015.
| S-EPMC7429699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Yet, these populations are significantly underrepresented in research.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the literature for published reports describing recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in ADRD research or underrepresented participants' perspectives regarding ADRD research participation. Relevant evidence was synthesized and evaluated for quality.ResultsWe identified 22 eligible studies. Seven studies focused on recruitment/retention approaches, all of which included multifaceted efforts and at least one community outreach component. There was considerable heterogeneity in approaches used, specific activities and strategies, outcome measurement, and conclusions regarding effectiveness. Despite limited use of prospective evaluation strategies, most authors reported improvements in diverse representation in ADRD cohorts. Studies evaluating participant views focused largely on predetermined explanations of participation including attitudes, barriers/facilitators, education, trust, and religiosity. Across all studies, the strength of evidence was low.DiscussionOverall, the quantity and quality of available evidence to inform best practices in recruitment, retention, and inclusion of underrepresented populations in ADRD research are low. Further efforts to systematically evaluate the success of existing and emergent approaches will require improved methodological standards and uniform measures for evaluating recruitment, participation, and inclusivity.
| S-EPMC6944728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) has posited a set of social dimensions that could be useful in identifying sources of individual variation in social impairments across neurodevelopmental disorders. The current investigation aimed to derive estimates of the RDoC social constructs from the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) and examine whether RDoC social processes, as captured by the SCQ, are best represented by a dimensional, categorical, or hybrid model. Individual SCQ items from 4 databases were combined resulting in a total of 26,407 individuals (Mage = 8.13 years, SDage = 4.19; 69.1% male). The sample consisted of 60.0% of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), 6.8% with a range of neurodevelopmental disorders and 33.2% of siblings of individuals with ASD. Comparison of a range of factor solutions through the use of exploratory structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a 3-factor structure with separate attachment and affiliation, production of nonfacial and facial communication factors provided excellent fit to the data (comparative fit index = .989, Tucker-Lewis index = .984, root mean square error of approximation = .045). and robustness across clinical groups, age, sex, and verbal status. Comparison between the best-fitting factor analysis, latent class analysis, and factor mixture analysis solutions demonstrated that the RDoC social processes domain is best represented as dimensional. Our findings show promise for capturing some of the important RDoC social constructs using the SCQ but also highlight crucial areas for the development of new, dedicated dimensional measures.
| S-EPMC7480015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In Alzheimer's disease (AD) research patients are usually recruited from clinical practice, memory clinics or nursing homes. Lack of standardised inclusion and diagnostic criteria is a major concern in current AD studies. The aim of the study was to explore whether patient characteristics differ between study samples recruited from general practice and from a population based screening by mail within the same geographic areas in rural Northern Norway.An interventional study in nine municipalities with 70000 inhabitants was designed. Patients were recruited from general practice or by population based screening of cognitive function by mail. We sent a questionnaire to 11807 individuals > or = 65 years of age of whom 3767 responded. Among these, 438 individuals whose answers raised a suspicion of cognitive impairment were invited to an extended cognitive and clinical examination. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, independent sample t-test and analyses of covariance adjusted for possible confounders were used.The final study samples included 100 patients recruited by screening and 87 from general practice. Screening through mail recruited younger and more self-reliant male patients with a higher MMSE sum score, whereas older women with more severe cognitive impairment were recruited from general practice. Adjustment for age did not alter the statistically significant differences of cognitive function, self-reliance and gender distribution between patients recruited by screening and from general practice.Different recruitment procedures of individuals with cognitive impairment provided study samples with different demographic characteristics. Initial cognitive screening by mail, preceding extended cognitive testing and clinical examination may be a suitable recruitment strategy in studies of early stage AD. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT00443014.
| S-EPMC2880123 | biostudies-literature