ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017
Comparison of recruitment and retention among demographic subgroups in a large diverse population study of diet.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe examined the feasibility of conducting a longitudinal study of diet among diverse populations by comparing rates of response throughout recruitment and retention phases by demographic and other characteristics.
methodsUsing quota sampling, participants were recruited from 3 geographically and demographically diverse integrated health systems in the United States. Overall, 12,860 adults, ages 20-70, were invited to participate via mail. Participation first required accessing the study's website and later meeting eligibility criteria via telephone interview. Enrollees were asked to provide two 24-hour dietary recalls, either interviewer-administered or self-administered on the web, over 6 weeks. Stepped monetary incentives were provided.
resultsRates for accessing the study website ranged from 6% to 23% (9% overall) across sites. Site differences may reflect differences in recruitment strategy or target samples. Of those accessing the website, enrollment was high (≥ 87%). Of the 1185 enrollees, 42% were non-Hispanic white, 34% were non-Hispanic black, and 24% were Hispanic. Men and minorities had lower enrollment rates than women and non-Hispanic whites, partially due to less successful telephone contact for eligibility screening. Once enrolled, 90% provided 1 recall and 80% provided both. Women had higher retention rates than men, as did older compared to younger participants. Retention rates were similar across race/ethnicity groups.
conclusionsWhile study recruitment remains challenging, once recruited most participants, regardless of race/ethnicity, completed two 24-hour dietary recalls, both interviewer-administered and self-administered on the web. This study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting multiple 24-hour recalls including less expensive automated self-administered recalls among diverse populations.
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.