Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
CAPS on the move: Crafting an approach to recruitment for a randomized controlled trial of community gardening.
Villalobos, A; Alaimo, K; Erickson, C; Harrall, K K; Glueck, D H; Buchenau, H; Buchenau, M; Coringrato, E; Decker, E; Fahnestock, L; Hamman, R F; Hebert, J R; Hurley, T G; Leiferman, J A; Li, K; Quist, P; Litt, J S.
Afiliação
  • Villalobos A; University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
  • Alaimo K; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
  • Erickson C; University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
  • Harrall KK; Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Glueck DH; University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Buchenau H; University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
  • Buchenau M; Denver Urban Gardens, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Coringrato E; University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
  • Decker E; University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
  • Fahnestock L; Denver Urban Gardens, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Hamman RF; Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Hebert JR; LEAD Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Hurley TG; University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
  • Leiferman JA; University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
  • Li K; Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Quist P; Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
  • Litt JS; University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun ; 16: 100482, 2019 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31799473
OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate recruitment approaches for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community gardening in Denver, Colorado. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03089177). METHODS: We used community and staff feedback to adapt our recruitment approach from year 1 to year 2 of a multi-year RCT to address health behaviors related to cancer prevention. In year 2, we added a full-time recruitment coordinator, designed and implemented a tracking spreadsheet, and engaged advisory committee members, local garden leaders, and health partners in planning and outreach. Screening and consent rates, staff time and costs for years 1 and 2 are compared. RESULTS: In year 1, recruitment methods yielded 136 initial contacts, 106 screenings and 64 consented participants. In year 2, enhanced staffing and outreach yielded 257 initial contacts, 193 screenings, and 123 consented participants. Personal referrals, health fairs, NextDoor, and fliers yielded the highest percentage of consented participants. School and community meetings yielded the lowest yield for potential participants. Spanish-speaking participants were mostly recruited by direct methods. Compared to year 1 recruitment, which required 707 h of staff time and cost $14,446, year 2 recruitment required 1224 h of staff time and cost $22,992. Average cost for retained participants was $226 (year 1) and $186 (year 2). DISCUSSION: Those planning pragmatic clinical trials with recruitment in multi-ethnic communities can use the results from this study to understand the efficacy of techniques, and to budget costs for recruitment. While our culturally-tailored recruitment methods cost more, they provided more effective and efficient ways to reach recruitment goals.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article