Comparison of recruitment methodologies for clinical trials: Results from the time for living and caring (TLC) intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants for research studies is a critical yet challenging task. Community-engaged recruitment strategies have gained prominence as effective means to engage diverse populations and ensure the representativeness of study samples. This case study aims to investigate the cost and effectiveness of various recruitment methods in enhancing research participation. METHODS: A comparative approach was employed to assess the outcomes of five different recruitment strategies used in the Time for Living & Caring (TLC) research study. Data on recruitment success, participant demographics, and retention rates were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, including ANOVA and Chi-squares, to statistically compare the outcomes associated with 5 different recruitment methodologies. The recruitment methodologies included two community-engaged strategies (community partner referral and community-based recruiters), a clinical database, social media, and word-of-mouth referral. CONCLUSION: The meta-data used to build this methodological case study describe different recruitment methodologies that may be used for clinical trials. This data-driven evaluation provides examples and considerations for researchers when developing budgets and proposals for future clinical trials. The primary finding is that there are tradeoffs in terms of cost, time, labor, and ultimately the representativeness of the sample, based on the type of recruitment methodology chosen.

Using Digital Inequality Framework to Evaluate a Technology-Delivered Intervention for Caregivers: Age, Education, and Computer Proficiency.

Objectives: Using "digital inequality" as a conceptual framework, this study evaluates the feasibility and usability of a technology-delivered intervention (an "app") for Alzheimer's and related dementia family caregivers. Time for Living and Caring (TLC) is an on-line intervention that provides virtual coaching and self-administered education and resources. Methods: A sample of family caregivers (n = 163) used the tool for 16 weeks, which included completing the Computer Proficiency Questionnaire (CPQ-12) at baseline. Analyses investigate the relationship between age, CPQ scores, intervention use, appraisal, and caregiver outcomes. Results: Age was inversely associated with CPQ; however, CPQ scores did not have a significant relationship with participant's self-perceived benefits or intervention appraisal. Computer Proficiency Questionnaire scores provided insight regarding research feasibility, with lower scores associated with greater odds of discontinuing engagement. Discussion: CPQ-12 scores can be used as a screening tool to identify those who may need additional support to engage with and benefit from technology-delivered interventions.

Family caregiver experiences and needs across health conditions, relationships, and the lifespan: a Qualitative analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experiences of family caregivers who provide care to individuals across a broad range of ages, caregiving relationships, and health conditions and/or disabilities. Family caregiver research is typically siloed by health condition or by caregiving relationship, leaving gaps in understanding similarities and differences among caregivers. METHODS: We hosted three virtual focus groups with diverse family caregivers (n = 26) caring for an individual with a long-term disability and/or health condition(s). We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis using an iterative, inductive process. RESULTS: Participants primarily expressed shared experiences, despite having unique caregiving situations. We identified themes among a) caregiver experiences: Trying to Do It All, Balancing Complex Emotions, Managing Expectations, and Adjusting to Changes Over Time and b) caregiver needs: Longing for Breaks and Self-Care; Lacking Help, Support and Resources; and Desiring Understanding and Recognition. CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize that many elements of the caregiving experience transcend care recipient age, condition, and relationship and are applicable to clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. The evidence of shared caregiver experiences can guide efficiencies in policy and practice (e.g., pooling of existing resources, expansion of interventions) to meet the needs of a broader population of caregivers.