Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26141164›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2015

A qualitative analysis of peer recruitment pressures in respondent driven sampling: Are risks above the ethical limit?

Heather I Mosher, Gayatri Moorthi, JiangHong Li, Margaret R Weeks

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. General regression methods for respondent-driven sampling data.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Heather I MosherInstitute for Community Research, 2 Hartford Square West, 146 Wyllys Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5128, United States. Electronic address: heather.mosher@icrweb.org.
Gayatri MoorthiInstitute for Community Research, 2 Hartford Square West, 146 Wyllys Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5128, United States.
JiangHong LiInstitute for Community Research, 2 Hartford Square West, 146 Wyllys Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5128, United States.
Margaret R WeeksInstitute for Community Research, 2 Hartford Square West, 146 Wyllys Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5128, United States.
Institute For Community Research · US

Funding

Using Coincidence Analysis to Investigate Factors Affecting PrEP Initiation and Continuation in Southern ending the Epidemic CountiesP30MH062294 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John Edward Pachankis · 2001 to 2026
$48.5M
IDU Peer Recruitment Dynamics and Network Structure in Respondent Driven SamplingR01DA031594 · NIDA · INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY RESEARCH · PI LI, JIANGHONG · 2011 to 2013
$1.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA031594NIDA NIH HHS R01DA031594NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062294
6 · The paper itself

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

Peer GroupAdolescentAdultDrug UsersFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionSampling StudiesSubstance Abuse, IntravenousYoung AdultInjection drug usePeer recruitmentQualitativeResearch ethicsRespondent driven sampling

Identifiers

PMID26141164
PMCPMC4543566
OpenAlexW2099763229

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.