A comparison of a centralized versus de-centralized recruitment schema in two community-based participatory research studies for cancer prevention.
A comparison of a centralized versus de-centralized recruitment schema in two community-based participatory research studies for cancer prevention.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10900-014-9924-9
复制
发表时间：
2015-04
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Hebert, James R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams, Swann Arp;Heiney, Sue P.;Brandt, Heather M.;Wirth, Michael D.;Khan, Samira;Johnson, Hiluv;Davis, Lisa;Wineglass, Cassandra M.;Warren-Jones, Tatiana Y.;Felder, Tisha M.;Drayton, Ruby F.;Davis, Briana;Farr, Deeonna E.;Hebert, James R.
关键词：
越来越多地使用基于社区的参与性研究方法，目的是在消除与癌症有关的健康差距方面取得更有意义和更有影响力的进展。虽然许多报告支持其优势，但很少有调查集中在比较以cbpr为导向的招聘和保留。因此，本分析的目的是报告和比较两项癌症预防研究中两种不同的CBPR方法。我们利用频率和卡方检验来比较和对比两项研究的受试者招募和保留情况，这两项研究纳入了非裔美国人饮食和体育活动干预的随机对照干预设计。一项研究采用分散式的招募方法，将招募的主要责任分配给各种教会合作伙伴的AA社区；而另一项研究采用集中式的招募方法，聘请一名社区个人作为研究人员，领导招募和干预交付。这两项研究在招募率和保留率方面表现同样良好（招募率分别为75%和88%，保留率分别为71%和66%），远远超过了传统癌症临床试验中引用的比率（~5%）。与集中式方法相比，非集中式方法似乎在统计上导致对照参与者的留存率更高（77% vs 51%， P<0.01）。因此，两种CBPR方法似乎都大大提高了AA群体的招募和保留率。我们进一步注意到吸取的教训和未来研究机会需要考虑的挑战。
Use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches is increasing with the goal of making more meaningful and impactful advances in eliminating cancer-related health disparities. While many reports have espoused its advantages, few investigations have focused on comparing CBPR-oriented recruitment and retention. Consequently, the purpose of this analysis was to report and compare two different CBPR approaches in two cancer prevention studies. We utilized frequencies and chi-squared tests to compare and contrast subject recruitment and retention for two studies that incorporated a randomized, controlled intervention design of a dietary and physical activity intervention among African Americans. One study utilized a de-centralized approach to recruitment in which primary responsibility for recruitment was assigned to the general AA community of various church partners whereas the other incorporated a centralized approach to recruitment in which a single lay community individual was hired as research personnel to lead recruitment and intervention delivery. Both studies performed equally well for both recruitment and retention (75 and 88% recruitment rates and 71 and 66% retention rates) far exceeding those rates traditionally cited for cancer clinical trials (~5%). The de-centralized approach to retention appeared to result in statistically greater retention for the control participants compared to the centralized approach (77 vs 51%, P<0.01). Consequently, both CBPR approaches appeared to greatly enhance recruitment and retention rates of AA populations. We further note lessons learned and challenges to consider for future research opportunities.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Kerner, JF;Guirguis-Blake, J;Briss, P
通讯作者：
Briss, P
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Larkey, Linda K.;Gonzalez, Julie A.;Glantz, Namino
通讯作者：
Glantz, Namino
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Freeman, Harold P;Chu, Kenneth C
通讯作者：
Chu, Kenneth C
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Hebert, James R.;Wirth, Michael;Blair, Steven N.
通讯作者：
Blair, Steven N.
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Dancy, BL;Wilbur, J;Barnes-Boyd, C
通讯作者：
Barnes-Boyd, C