Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23574419›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2013

Pregnancy recruitment for population research: the National Children's Study vanguard experience in Wayne County, Michigan.

Jean M Kerver, Michael R Elliott, Gwendolyn S Norman, Robert J Sokol, Daniel P Keating, Glenn E Copeland, Christine C Johnson, Kendall K Cislo, Kirsten H Alcser, Shonda R Kruger-Ndiaye and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Feasibility Study ofNutrients · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2014
    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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jean M KerverDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. kerverje@msu.edu
Michael R Elliott
Gwendolyn S Norman
Robert J Sokol
Daniel P Keating
Glenn E Copeland
Christine C Johnson
Kendall K Cislo
Kirsten H Alcser
Shonda R Kruger-Ndiaye
Beth-Ellen Pennell
Shobha Mehta
Christine L M Joseph
Nigel Paneth
MANCS Executive Committee
SoundRocket (United States) · USHenry Ford Health System · USMichigan State University · USWayne State University · USMichigan Department of Health and Human Services · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

NICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700007CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700034CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200800007C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo obtain a probability sample of pregnancies, the National Children's Study conducted door-to-door recruitment in randomly selected neighbourhoods in randomly selected counties in 2009-10. In 2011, an experiment was conducted in 10 US counties, in which the two-stage geographic sample was maintained, but participants were recruited in prenatal care provider offices. We describe our experience recruiting pregnant women this way in Wayne County, Michigan, a county where geographically eligible women attended 147 prenatal care settings, and comprised just 2% of total county pregnancies.

methodsAfter screening for address eligibility in prenatal care offices, we used a three-part recruitment process: (1) providers obtained permission for us to contact eligible patients, (2) clinical research staff described the study to women in clinical settings, and (3) survey research staff visited the home to consent and interview eligible women.

resultsWe screened 34,065 addresses in 67 provider settings to find 215 eligible women. Providers obtained permission for research contact from 81.4% of eligible women, of whom 92.5% agreed to a home visit. All home-visited women consented, giving a net enrolment of 75%. From birth certificates, we estimate that 30% of eligible county pregnancies were enrolled, reaching 40-50% in the final recruitment months.

conclusionsWe recruited a high fraction of pregnancies identified in a broad cross-section of provider offices. Nonetheless, because of time and resource constraints, we could enrol only a fraction of geographically eligible pregnancies. Our experience suggests that the probability sampling of pregnancies for research could be more efficiently achieved through sampling of providers rather than households.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionPregnant PeopleChild, PreschoolFemaleHouse CallsHumansInfantMichiganPregnancyPrenatal CareResearch DesignSampling Studies

Identifiers

PMID23574419
PMCPMC3673293
OpenAlexW1590205451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.