ArticleInjury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention2007
Challenges of recruiting farm injury study participants through hospital emergency departments.
Article in Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for unintentional poisoning in children aged 1-3 years in NSW Australia: a case-control study.BMC pediatrics · 2013Article
- Population based case-control study of serious non-fatal motorcycle crashes.BMC public health · 2013Article
- Recruitment and retention of farm owners and workers for a six-month prospective injury study in New Zealand: a feasibility study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2011Article
- Recruiting participants for injury studies in emergency departments.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospital emergency departments are common recruitment sites for injury studies. Yet recruitment method details, capture rates and response fractions are not consistently reported. As privacy legislation increasingly impinges on research activity, these parameters become even more important. The authors describe their experience with recruitment via emergency departments and outline subsequent adjustments to the recruitment approach.
methodsThe FIRM study was an Australian case-control study of serious farm work-related injury. Cases were identified prospectively by hospital staff on presentation to emergency departments. Consistent with the Victorian Health Records Act, potential cases were initially approached by hospital staff, and full recruitment was subsequently undertaken by study staff. Manual hospital record audits were conducted at five recruitment sites to determine the proportion of eligible cases approached.
resultsAmong 660 medical records audited, 19 eligible cases were confirmed, 9 of whom were approached by hospital staff (47%, 95% CI 25 to 70%). In response, an additional process was established to capture missed cases, who were sent a letter from the hospital providing the opportunity to opt out of telephone contact by study staff. Early indications were that 34% (41/122) of missed cases actively declined to be contacted. Among those who were contacted and eligible, 84% (21/25) agree to study participation.
conclusionsRecruitment of injury research participants via hospital emergency departments is challenging, particularly where authorities require an intermediary to make the initial contact. Removal of some constraints imposed by privacy legislation would considerably simplify recruitment and enhance scientific rigour in conducting epidemiological research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.