Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27251869›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2016

The National Children's Study: Early Recruitment Outcomes Using the Direct Outreach Approach.

Patricia M McGovern, Nancy M Nachreiner, Jane L Holl, Neal Halfon, Dana Dabelea, Laura Caulfield, Jane A Cauley, Mark S Innocenti, Laura Amsden, Nina Markovic and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Patricia M McGovernSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; pmcg@umn.edu.
Nancy M NachreinerMedica Research Institute, Minnetonka, Minnesota;
Jane L HollFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois;
Neal HalfonSchools of Medicine, Public Health, and Public Policy, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California;
Dana DabeleaColorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado;
Laura CaulfieldThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland;
Jane A CauleyGraduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Mark S InnocentiCenter for Persons with Disabilities, Utah State University, Logan, Utah; and.
Laura AmsdenFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois;
Nina MarkovicGraduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Minsun RiddlesWestat, Rockville, Maryland.
Sara AdamsWestat, Rockville, Maryland.

Funding

NICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700015CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700017CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700022CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700027CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700029CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200800004CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200800010CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200800018CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200800024C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn 2009, the National Children's Study (NCS) Vanguard Study tested the feasibility of household-based recruitment and participant enrollment by using a birth rate probability sample. In 2010, the NCS Program Office launched 3 alternative recruitment methods. We tested whether direct outreach (DO) recruitment could be a more efficient strategy to recruit women of child-bearing age.

methodsThe NCS DO recruitment approach recruited women, 18 to 49 years, who were pregnant or trying to conceive using passive recruitment methods emphasizing broad community outreach and engagement to create study awareness. Study mailings to listed households included a pregnancy screening questionnaire to identify potentially eligible women from selected neighborhoods to contact the study center. Unique features of this recruitment approach included the following: (1) expansion of selected neighborhoods to maximize potential participant recruitment and enrollment while minimizing in-person participant contact and (2) offering 2 levels of study participation distinguished by data collection intensity.

resultsTen study centers listed 255 475 geographically eligible households for contact representing, on average, 3.3% of households per Primary Sampling Unit. A total of 19 354 women were identified for screening, and 17 421 completed a pregnancy screener representing 6.8% of eligible households. Study-eligible pregnant women were older, more educated, and less likely to be Hispanic than the general population. Only 16% (2786) of 17 421 screened women were study-eligible, and 81.1% of these 2786 women consented to participate.

conclusionsAlthough feasible, the DO approach recruited a sample of study-eligible pregnant women significantly different from the population. This recruitment approach was labor intensive for the yield of enrolled women.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentCommunity-Institutional RelationsNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.)Patient SelectionPregnant PeopleAdolescentAdultBirth RateChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID27251869
PMCPMC4878107

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.