Dataset Information

A cross-sectional survey of potential factors, motivations, and barriers influencing research participation and retention among people who use drugs in the rural USA.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite high morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD) in rural America, most research is conducted within urban areas. Our objective was to describe influencing factors, motivations, and barriers to research participation and retention among rural PWUD.

Methods

We recruited 255 eligible participants from community outreach and community-based, epidemiologic research cohorts from April to July 2019 to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Eligible participants reported opioid or injection drug use to get high within 30 days and resided in high-needs rural counties in Oregon, Kentucky, and Ohio. We aggregated response rankings to identify salient influences, motivations, and barriers. We estimated prevalence ratios to assess for gender, preferred drug use, and geographic differences using log-binomial models.

Results

Most participants were male (55%) and preferred methamphetamine (36%) over heroin (35%). Participants reported confidentiality, amount of financial compensation, and time required as primary influential factors for research participation. Primary motivations for participation include financial compensation, free HIV/HCV testing, and contribution to research. Changed or false participant contact information and transportation are principal barriers to retention. Respondents who prefer methamphetamines over heroin reported being influenced by the purpose and use of their information (PR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26). Females and Oregonians (versus Appalachians) reported knowing and wanting to help the research team as participation motivation (PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.26 and PR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.99).

Conclusions

Beyond financial compensation, researchers should emphasize confidentiality, offer testing and linkage with care, use several contact methods, aid transportation, and accommodate demographic differences to improve research participation and retention among rural PWUD.

SUBMITTER: Hetrick AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8690874 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe lack of robust estimates of HIV/HCV incidence among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Iran calls for well-designed prospective cohort studies. Successful recruitment and follow-up of PWID in cohort studies may require formative assessment of barriers PWID are faced with in participation and retention in cohort studies and factors they think may facilitate their engagement in such studies. Using a focus group discussion (FGD) format, we conducted a consultation with PWID in southeast Iran to recognize those barriers and motivators.MethodsUsing targeted sampling and through snowball referrals, we recruited PWID (aged≥18, injected in last 6 months) from community-based drop-in centers (DICs), homeless shelters, and through outreach efforts to participate in four FGDs (one women-only). Socio-demographic characteristics, injection behaviors and self-reported HCV/HIV testing and diagnosis history were obtained. Then, a semi-structured FGD guide was applied to explore barriers and motivators to participation and retention in cohort studies among study participants. All FGD sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim, removing any identifying information. The content of FGDs were analyzed by thematic analysis using an inductive approach.ResultsIn total, 30 individuals (10 women) participated in the study. The median age of participants was 35 (IQR 31-40), with majority (73.3%) reporting injecting drug use within the last month. Only 40.0% reported ever being tested for HCV whereas a larger proportion (63.4%) reported ever being tested for HIV. While the majority were willing to participate in cohort studies, breach of confidentiality, fear of positive test results, perceived required commitment, and marginalization were reported as barriers to participation and retention in such studies. Monetary incentive, the thought of a better life, protection from police interventions and trust between health workers and PWID were addressed as motivators of engagement in cohort studies among PWID.ConclusionsStrategies to enhance data security and reduce stigma associated with injecting drug use along with involving peer workers in research, providing pre and post-test counselling and education and addressing the needs of more marginalized groups potentially through integrated healthcare programs and housing support are among few approaches that may help address barriers and strengthen the motivators for successful cohort studies among this population.

Project description:IntroductionRural communities bear a disproportionate share of the opioid and methamphetamine use disorder epidemics. Yet, rural people who use drugs (PWUD) are rarely included in trials testing new drug use prevention and treatment strategies. Numerous barriers impede rural PWUD trial engagement and advancing research methods to better retain rural PWUD in clinical trials is needed. This paper describes the Peer-based Retention Of people who Use Drugs in Rural Research (PROUD-R2) study protocol to test the effectiveness of a peer-driven intervention to improve study retention among rural PWUD.Methods and analysisThe PROUD-R2 study is being implemented in 21 rural counties in three states (Kentucky, Ohio and Oregon). People who are 18 years or older, reside in the study area and either used opioids or injected any drug to get high in the past 30 days are eligible for study inclusion. Participants are allocated in a 1:1 ratio to two arms, stratified by site to assure balance at each geographical location. The trial compares the effectiveness of two retention strategies. Participants randomised to the control arm provide detailed contact information and receive standard retention outreach by study staff (ie, contacts for locator information updates, appointment reminders). Participants randomised to the intervention arm are asked to recruit a 'study buddy' in addition to receiving standard retention outreach. Study buddies are invited to participate in a video training and instructed to remind their intervention participant of follow-up appointments and encourage retention. Assessments are completed by intervention, control and study buddy participants at 6 and 12 months after enrolment.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by a central Institutional Review Board (University of Utah). Results of the study will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and in meetings with community stakeholders.Trial registration numberNCT03885024.

Project description:Anthropogenic derived environmental change is challenging earth's biodiversity. To implement effective management, it is imperative to understand how organisms are responding over broad spatiotemporal scales. Collection of these data is generally beyond the budget of individual researchers and the integration and sharing of ecological data and associated infrastructure is becoming more common. However, user groups differ in their expectations, standards of performance, and desired outputs from research investment, and accommodating the motivations and fears of potential users from the outset may lead to higher levels of participation. Here we report upon a study of the Australian ornithology community, which was instigated to better understand perceptions around participation in nationally coordinated research infrastructure for detecting and tracking the movement of birds. The community was surveyed through a questionnaire and individuals were asked to score their motivations and fears around participation. Principal Components Analysis was used to reduce the dimensionality of the data and identify groups of questions where respondents behaved similarly. Linear regressions and model selection were then applied to the principal components to determine how career stage, employment role, and years of biotelemetry experience affected the respondent's motivations and fears for participation. The analysis showed that across all sectors (academic, government, NGO) there was strong motivation to participate and belief that national shared biotelemetry infrastructure would facilitate bird management and conservation. However, results did show that a cross-sector cohort of the Australian ornithology community were keen and ready to progress collaborative infrastructure for tracking birds, and measures including data-sharing agreements could increase participation. It also informed that securing initial funding would be a significant challenge, and a better option to proceed may be for independent groups to coordinate through existing database infrastructure to form the foundation from which a national network could grow.

Project description:Researchers’ participation in online rimssThis article examined how researchers participated in research information management systems (RIMSs), their motivations for participation, and their priorities for those motivations. Profile maintenance, question-answering, and endorsement activities were used to define three cumulatively increasing levels of participation: Readers, Record Managers, and Community Members. Junior researchers were more engaged in RIMSs than were senior researchers. Postdocs had significantly higher odds of endorsing other researchers for skills and being categorized as Community Members than did full and associate professors. Assistant professors were significantly more likely to be Record Managers than were members of any other seniority categories. Finally, researchers from the life sciences showed a significantly higher propensity for being Community Members than Readers and Record Managers when compared with researchers from engineering and the physical sciences, respectively.Researchers’ motivations to participate in rimssWhen performing activities, researchers were motivated by the desire to share scholarship, feel competent, experience a sense of enjoyment, improve their status, and build ties with other members of the community. Moreover, when researchers performed activities that directly benefited other members of a RIMS, they assigned higher priorities to intrinsic motivations, such as perceived self-efficacy, enjoyment, and building community ties. Researchers at different stages of their academic careers and disciplines ranked some of the motivations for engaging with RIMSs differently. The general model of research participation in RIMSs; the relationships among RIMS activities; the motivation scales for activities; and the activity, seniority, and discipline-specific priorities for the motivations developed by this study provide the foundation for a framework for researcher participation in RIMSs. This framework can be used by RIMSs and institutional repositories to develop tools and design mechanisms to increase researchers' engagement in RIMSs.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Endometriosis causes significant personal and societal burden. Despite this, research funding lags behind other chronic conditions. Determining where to prioritise these limited funds is therefore vital. Research priorities may also differ between individuals with endometriosis and clinicians/researchers. The aim of this research project is to explore research priorities and factors shaping participation in endometriosis research from the perspective of people with endometriosis in Australia. Materials and Methods: Four focus groups involving 30 people with endometriosis were conducted and analysed using qualitative inductive content analysis. Results: Two categories were developed from the data: unmet research needs and motivators and barriers to participation in endometriosis research. Participants expressed interest in developing non-invasive diagnostic tools and a more multidisciplinary or holistic approach to treatment. Participants urgently desired research on treatment options for symptom management, with many prioritising non-hormonal treatments, including medicinal cannabis and complementary medicine. Others prioritised research on the causes of endometriosis over research on treatments to assist with prevention and eventual cure of the disease. The main drivers for participating in endometriosis research were hope for symptom improvement and a reduction in time to diagnosis. Research design features that were important in supporting participation included ease of access to testing centres (e.g., for blood tests) and sharing test results and automated data collection reminders, with simple stra-tegies to record data measurements. Research incentives for younger people with endometriosis and a broad dissemination of information about research projects was considered likely to increase participant numbers. Barriers included time commitments, a lack of flexibility around research appointments for data collection, travel or work commitments, concerns about the safety of some products, and trying to conceive a child. Conclusions: People with endometriosis were open to participating in research they felt aligned with their needs, with a significant focus on diagnostic tools and symptom relief. However, researchers must co-design approaches to ensure convenience and flexibility for research participation.