1 / 64

Recruitment, Retention and Community Engagement

Recruitment, Retention and Community Engagement. Anna Nápoles, Ph.D., MPH EPI 222 May 20, 2010. Outline. Introduce recruitment issues in diverse groups Review framework and critical questions for designing recruitment approaches Value of involving communities in research .

Télécharger la présentation

Recruitment, Retention and Community Engagement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Recruitment, Retention and Community Engagement Anna Nápoles, Ph.D., MPH EPI 222 May 20, 2010

  2. Outline • Introduce recruitment issues in diverse groups • Review framework and critical questions for designing recruitment approaches • Value of involving communities in research

  3. NIH Mandate to Recruit Minorities • 1993 NIH Revitalization Act: women and minorities must be included in clinical research supported by NIH • For clinical trials, recruitment methods must yield sufficient numbers to allow valid evaluation of ethnic differences • Need to provide scientific evidence that is relevant for major ethnic groups

  4. 4 Basic Recruitment Issues in Diverse Groups • Mismatch between priorities of researchers and communities • Barriers to participation include historical, social, financial and attitudinal factors • Need for more evidence as to what works • Planning is key: targeted strategies, additional resources, flexibility

  5. Mismatch in priorities

  6. Identifying Community Priorities and Attitudes about Research • Mail survey: 117 San Francisco and Oakland CBOs serving African Americans and Latinos, • Focus groups: 36 low-income residents (aged 58-84) of Bayview Hunters Point, Western Addition and Mission District

  7. CBO Survey - Unmet Needs of African American and Latino Elders Percent Needing Lots/Huge RankUnmet Need Amount of Help 1 Affordable housing 71 2 Enough money to meet needs 70 3 Transportation 60 4 Safer neighborhoods 60 5 Medical care 53 6 Help with household tasks 45 7 Care for depression or anxiety 45 Nápoles-Springer A et al., Research on Aging. 2000;22(6):668-691.

  8. Focus GroupsSocial Priorities • Urban isolation and vulnerability • Racism and discrimination in housing and health care • Social impotence, hopelessness • Personal safety of elders • Affordable and easy access to housing

  9. Focus GroupsHealth Priorities • Need for community-based health centers • Access to new prevention and treatment options • Better communication with physicians • Better health insurance coverage

  10. How do We Address the Mismatch? • Make research accessible • Provide financial incentives • Develop trust – relationships • Make an effort to meet some of their informational or resource needs

  11. Barriers History Distrust Attitudes Information Needs

  12. History of Research Abuse and Neglect • 1960’s: injection of elderly with cancer cells to measure immunologic reactions at Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn • 1932-1972: Tuskegee Syphilis Study in Alabama untreated progression of syphilis in poor Black men • 1980’s : Men only studies of aspirin to reduce MI risk Women’s movement pushed for more women’s research

  13. CBO SurveyTrust in Researchers % Neither % AgreeA nor D% Disagree L and AA do not take part due to distrust 65 29 6 L and AA afraid due to discrimination 43 39 18 Studies guard health of participants 41 45 14 Researchers protect rights of participants 35 55 10 Participants treated as guinea pigs 30 46 24 Good reason not to trust health researchers 25 43 32 Researchers are condescending to minorities 25 62 13

  14. Focus GroupsBarriers to Participation in Research • Distrust of doctors, researchers, institutions • Lack of information • Lack of follow-up if adversely affected • Inconvenience • Lack of transportation • Caregiver obligations • 31% of African Americans and 95% of Latinos agreed to be re-contacted

  15. Focus GroupsExperimentation “They don’t know if people are tellin’ the truth. You know, they will tell you you’re gonna get in this research. Well, what IS this research? Are you REALLY gonna do what you say you’re gonna do? Or are you gonna tell me, are you puttin’ me, and then injectin’ me with the AIDS virus, or a syphilis virus, or something else, and I’m not aware? …People are afraid. They just don’t know enough about these programs.”

  16. Focus GroupsBenefits of Research • Advance scientific knowledge • To preserve one’s/community’s health • To learn more about a specific disease • To teach researchers about cultural differences • Access to new treatments

  17. Focus GroupsLack of Tangible Benefits “Me, I would have to know that the information they get is gonna benefit the community, as well as me, in some way. If I knew…the findings would benefit the community, and something would be DONE with those findings. They’ve got researchers from UC everywhere, have been out here to research the soil, the air, everything. And then after, they go, that’s the last we hear of it.”

  18. How Do We Address Barriers? CBO respondent “Researchers need to spend time in agencies and in community or clients’ homes to develop trust. Paying people and providing transportation is not enough to increase participation. The study has to have some intrinsic worth to the research participant. Communicating the results back to the agency and participants is crucial to developing trust.”

  19. How Do We Address Barriers? • Improve fit between the priorities of researchers and those of the community • Focus on AA & L community members value of knowledge, especially if improves their own or communities’ health • AA & L are willing to participate if: • we openly address their concerns • we reduce barriers to participating

  20. Need for Evidence Base

  21. Current Status of Recruitment & Retention Science Systematic reviews concluded: • Need for more systematic research • To test efficacy of specific methods • With greater methodological rigor • In specific groups Lai G, et al. Clinical Trials 2006;3:133-141. UyBico SJ, et al. JGIM 2007;22(6):852-63. Yancey A, et al. Annu Rev Pub Hlth 2006;27:9.1-9.28

  22. Lack of Evidence • Of 600 articles 1970-2003 on community-level obesity-lifestyle interventions in general population, only 5 presented ethnic-specific data Yancey AK, et al. 2004. Prev Chronic Disease, 1:1-18

  23. Lack of Evidence 1990-2000 Review of 261 U.S. Phase III cancer prevention and treatment trials • Age/gender reported in ≈ 92% • R/E reported in 35% of tx and 54% of prevention RCTs • No tx RCTs used R/E as selection criteria while gender specified in 44% and age in 29% Swanson GM,2002 Cancer:95(5); 950-9.

  24. Lessons Learned Observational data • Extensive time, expense, effort • Community is key • Culturally sensitive methods • Multiple methods = higher yield

  25. When Awareness & Opportunity Exist WTP compared to Whites OR95% CI 3 interview studies AA .92 (.84 – 1.02) Latinos 1.37 (.94 – 1.98) 10 clinical interventions AA 1.06 (.78 – 1.45) Latinos 1.33 (1.08 – 1.65) Wendler D, et al., 2006. PLoS Med;3(2):e19

  26. The Science of Recruitment

  27. Experimental RCTs of Recruitment Methods Special issue in Community Genetics 2008; 11

  28. Asians – Cancer Genetics Networks UCI & Fred Hutchinson CGN compared 4 recruitment methods targeting Asians in a RCT: • Traditional intro letter/packet • Trad + $20 international phone card • Trad + pan-Asian greeting (cover sheet) • Combo (all 3 components) Wenzel L, et al. Community Genetics 2008;11:234-240.

  29. Personalized Greeting in 5 Asian Languages

  30. Results • Site differences: • No incentive effect for UCI • Fred Hutchinson - Seattle • Phone card 3x more likely • Greeting 4.5 x • Combo 3x

  31. Latinos – South Texas • Conducted RCT of 3 recruitment methods targeting Latinos for CGN registry: • Traditional intro letter/packet • Above + culturally tailored magazine • Combo (Above + magazine + f/u phone call) Ramirez A, et al. Community Genetics 2008;11:215-223.

  32. Culturally Tailored Magazine

  33. Results • Combo (trad+mag+ph call) did best (43% response rate) • Traditional only: (31%) • Traditional + mag: (30%) 28% of combo group indicated they would not have joined without the call

  34. RCTs - Evidence • Direct mail to Latinos for dietary intervention – hand-signed letter with flyer more effective than flyer only Kiernan M, et al. Annals Behav Med 2000;22(1):89-93. • Ethnically tailored letters – no effect in Latinos, African Americans Kiernan M, et al. Annals Behav Med 2000;22(1):89-93. Nápoles-Springer A, et al. JGIM 2006;20(5):438-43.

  35. Costs? • Limited cost info by method & R/E • Breast cancer risk screening of White, Latina, Asian and African American women: $113/screened participant using mail, community outreach, and radio ads Keyzer JF, et al. Ethn IDs 2005;15(3):395-406 • $ for incentives to participants, organizational service fees, dissemination of results

  36. Recruitment and Retention Planning Strategies and Resources

  37. Recruitment Factors Sampling frame Individual/family/ community factors Study characteristics Recruitment methods Personnel characteristics Stages of Participation Invitation to participate Establishing contact and eligibility Initial response Study retention and completion Recruitment Framework

  38. Sampling Strategies • Use lists and identify surnames • 80% sensitive and specific for Latinos • More sensitive and specific for Vietnamese • Target census tracts based on high-density areas • Budget additional $ to screen for ethnicity if not available in sampling frame • Allow for misclassification of ethnicity • Harder (more $) to recruit older adults

  39. Factors and Stages of Recruitment: Critical Questions Stage 1: Invitation to Participate • Is sampling frame likely to yield representative sample of targeted subgroups? • Does initial contact method account for literacy, culture, education, language, familiarity with and acceptance of research? • Are messages appealing to targeted audience? • Are there pre-recruitment strategies that might help (e.g., radio ads, endorsements, outreach)?

  40. Factors and Stages of Recruitment: Critical Questions Stage 2: Establishing Contact and Eligibility • How accurate is the contact information? • Is ethnicity available/accurate? • When is the best time to attempt contact? • Do I have to obtain the consent of other family members? • Is no response a soft refusal? • Will poor health/high mortality affect recruitment? • Are eligibility criteria a barrier?

  41. Factors and Stages of Recruitment: Critical Questions Stage 3: Initial Response • Is the initial respondent burden reasonable (transportation, poor health)? • Tangible benefits to participating? • Are setting, approach, personnel welcoming? • Is research relevant and interesting? • What do I know about non-responders? • How do I deal with refusals?

  42. Factors and Stages of Recruitment: Critical Questions Stage 4: Study Retention and Completion • How do participants feel about continuing? • How can I maintain current contact information? • Is the ongoing respondent burden reasonable? • Ongoing tangible benefits to participating? • How can I feed back interim and final results to participants and the communities involved?

  43. Aims of IPC Recruitment Study • Achieve equal representation of 4 ethnic-language groups in a telephone survey of the interpersonal processes of care • Assess response status by stage and ethnic-language group • Assess effectiveness of ethnically-tailored letter on minority recruitment

  44. Targeted Recruitment Strategies • Initial contact letter with phone follow-up to patients in clinic database • Pre-tested envelopes, letters for clarity, readability, appeal • Bilingual materials and personnel • Randomized trial of ethnically-tailored initial contact letters for African Americans and Latinos • Enhanced follow-up protocol with Latinos due to smaller numbers; ↑ no. of calls, search for wrong phone nos.

  45. Initial Contact Letter Project Logo YourOpinionsMatter Help Us Improve Communication Between Doctors and Patients Please Consider Taking Part In This Study Ethnically-tailored letter for non-Whites: • shortage of ethnic concordant MDs • need for input of patients from their ethnic group

  46. IPC Response Rates by Letter Type

  47. IPC Recruitment Results

  48. IPC Recruitment Results

  49. Summary of IPC Recruitment Results • Primary subject loss is prior to contact - from 25% (LS) to 46% (W) • Once contacted, response rates fairly high • Higher in LS (75%) and AA (70%) • Lower in LE (68%) and W (66%)

  50. Recruitment Planning • Multiple strategies • Address potential barriers • Nurture relationships • Anticipate losses by group & stage

More Related