You are how you recruit: a cohort and randomized controlled trial of recruitment strategies
You are how you recruit: a cohort and randomized controlled trial of recruitment strategies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-14-111
复制
发表时间：
2014-09-27
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Mandhane, Piush
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maghera, Amy;Kahlke, Paul;Mandhane, Piush
背景：招募是开发具有人口代表性的妊娠和出生队列的一项挑战。方法：我们开发了一个协作招聘基础设施 (CRI)，使用以下方式招募孕妇进行 4 个妊娠队列：来自产科办公室的传真、诊所内招募人员、大学和资助者驱动的自由媒体活动、付费媒体以及参加相关贸易展览。比较了不同招聘方法的招聘率和人口统计差异。结果：我们在 40 个月内收到了 5008 份推荐。与传真相比，免费媒体推荐被招募的可能性高出 13 倍（OR 13.0，95% CI 4.2, 40.4：p < 0.001），付费媒体推荐被招募的可能性高出 4 倍（OR 4.6，95% CI 2.1, 10.3：p < 0.001）。在付费媒体广告中，免费阅读的印刷品（例如 Metro）是最有效的（OR 3.3，95% CI 2.3，4.5：p < 0.05）。在招募方法和参考人群之间发现了一些人口统计学差异。在招募方法之间，与传真招募 (95.7%) 相比，媒体招募的家庭收入 >= 40,000 美元的比例相似（付费媒体：94.4%；免费媒体：93.3%），而诊所招募的家庭收入 >= 40,000 美元的可能性较小（88.8%，p < 0.05）。与参考人群（52.0%；两者 p < 0.05）相比，来自传真和诊所的孕产妇入读大学的可能性更大（传真：92.6%，诊所内 89.8%），并且与参考人群（18.6%；两者 p < 0.05）相比，两者吸烟的可能性较小（传真：6.8%，诊所内 4.2%）。然而，虽然传真转诊更有可能是白人（85.9% 相对于参考文献 77.5%；p < 0.05），但诊所转诊没有显着差异（78.2%；P > 0.05）。结论：招募方法导致不同的招募率和参与者人口统计。需要多种方法来招募可概括的样本。
Background: Recruitment is a challenge in developing population-representative pregnancy and birth cohorts.Methods: We developed a collaborative recruitment infrastructure (CRI) to recruit pregnant women for 4 pregnancy cohorts using: faxes from obstetrical offices, in-clinic recruiters, university and funder-driven free-media events, paid-media, and attendance at relevant tradeshows. Recruitment rates and demographic differences were compared between recruitment methods.Results: We received 5008 referrals over 40 months. Compared to fax, free-media referrals were 13 times more likely to be recruited (OR 13.0, 95% CI 4.2, 40.4: p < 0.001) and paid-media referrals were 4 times more likely to be recruited (OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.1, 10.3: p < 0.001). Among paid-media advertisements, free-to-read print (e. g. Metro) was the most effective (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.3, 4.5: p < 0.05). Several demographic differences were identified between recruitment methods and against a reference population. Between recruitment methods, media recruits had a similar proportion families with incomes >= $40,000 (paid-media: 94.4%; free-media: 93.3%) compared to fax recruits (95.7%), while in-clinic recruits were less likely to have family incomes >= $40,000 (88.8%, p < 0.05). Maternal recruits from fax and in-clinic were more likely to attend university (Fax: 92.6%, in-clinic 89.8%) versus the reference population (52.0%; p < 0.05 for both) and both were less likely to smoke (Fax: 6.8%, in-clinic 4.2%) versus reference (18.6%; p < 0.05 for both). However, while fax referrals were more likely to be Caucasian (85.9% versus reference 77.5%; p < 0.05), in-clinic referrals were not significantly different (78.2%; P > 0.05).Conclusion: Recruitment methods result in different recruitment rates and participant demographics. A variety of methods are required to recruit a generalizable sample.