ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2015
A qualitative analysis of peer recruitment pressures in respondent driven sampling: Are risks above the ethical limit?
Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integration of a geospatially targeted community-based testing approach with respondent-driven sampling to identify people who inject drugs living with HIV and HCV in Patti and Gorakhpur, India.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2023Article
- General regression methods for respondent-driven sampling data.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Article
- Clustering of chronic hepatitis B screening intentions in social networks of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Intervention Reach and Sexual Risk Reduction of a Multi-level, Community-Based HIV Prevention Intervention for Crack Users in San Salvador, El Salvador.AIDS and behavior · 2019Article
- Empirical evidence of recruitment bias in a network study of people who inject drugs.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2019Article
- Overlooked Threats to Respondent Driven Sampling Estimators: Peer Recruitment Reality, Degree Measures, and Random Selection Assumption.AIDS and behavior · 2018Article
- Identification of Homophily and Preferential Recruitment in Respondent-Driven Sampling.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis paper examines peer recruitment dynamics through respondent driven sampling (RDS) with a sample of injection drug users in Hartford, CT to understand the strategies participants use to recruit peers into a study and the extent to which these strategies may introduce risks above the ethical limit despite safeguards in RDS.
methodsOut of 526 injection drug users who participated in a mixed-method RDS methodology evaluation study, a nested sample of 61 participants completed an in-depth semi-structured interview at a 2-month follow-up to explore their experiences with the recruitment process.
resultsFindings revealed that participants used a variety of strategies to recruit peers, ranging from one-time interactions to more persistent strategies to encourage participation (e.g., selecting peers that can easily be found and contacted later, following up with peers to remind them of their appointment, accompanying peers to the study site, etc.). Some participants described the more persistent strategies as helpful, while some others experienced these strategies as minor peer pressure, creating a feeling of obligation to participate. Narratives revealed that overall, the probability of experiencing study-related risks remains relatively low for most participants; however, a disconcerting finding was that higher study-related risks (e.g., relationship conflict, loss of relationship, physical fights, violence) were seen for recruits who participated but switched coupons or for recruits who decided not to participate in the study and did not return the coupon to the recruiter.
conclusionsFindings indicate that peer recruitment practices in RDS generally pose minimal risk, but that peer recruitment may occasionally exceed the ethical limit, and that enhanced safeguards for studies using peer recruitment methods are recommended. Suggestions for possible enhancements are described.
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.