Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15523509›Full record

ArticleJournal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology2005

Comparison of recruitment, retention, and compliance results for three children's exposure monitoring studies.

Ken Sexton

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Recruitment and retention strategies and methods in the HEALTHY study.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2009
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Issues in design and implementation in an urban birth cohort study: the Syracuse AUDIT project.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2006
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ken SextonDivision of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Texas School of Public Health, Brownsville Regional Campus, 78520-4956, USA. ksexton@utb.edu
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The School Health Initiative: Environment, Learning, Disease (SHIELD) study, the Minnesota Children's Pesticide Exposure Study (MNCPES), and the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study (NCICAS) are three of the most intensive and invasive exposure-monitoring projects ever undertaken in children. An intrinsic facet of each study was the need to recruit children and their families, retain them for the duration of the project, and ensure that they completed monitoring protocols successfully. All of the studies used fiscal incentives to encourage participation, retention, and compliance. Recruitment rates varied from 40% in MNCPES, to 57% in SHIELD, to 64% in NCICAS, while retention rates varied from 85% in SHIELD, to 94% in MNCPES, to 95% in NCICAS. Rates of compliance with exposure sampling procedures were typically >80% for each study. For example, > or =85% of the enrolled children provided all requested urine samples (1 for NCICAS, 2 for SHIELD, 3 for MNCPES), and 82% of the children in SHIELD provided two out of two blood samples (optional in MNCPES and NCICAS). However, compliance rates were substantially lower (34% SHIELD, 40% NCICAS, not applicable to MNCPES) for the more complex and time-consuming protocol used to collect peak flow data. Overall, results demonstrate that it is practical and affordable to conduct demanding exposure-monitoring studies in children, including children from poor minority communities.

Indexed as

Child WelfareEnvironmental MonitoringPatient CompliancePatient DropoutsPatient SelectionAdolescentBlack PeopleChildChild, PreschoolCitiesHispanic or LatinoHumansMinority GroupsPoverty

Identifiers

PMID15523509
OpenAlexW1972941810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.