Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31799473›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019

CAPS on the move: Crafting an approach to recruitment for a randomized controlled trial of community gardening.

A Villalobos, K Alaimo, C Erickson, K K Harrall, D H Glueck, H Buchenau, M Buchenau, E Coringrato, E Decker, L Fahnestock and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03089177 (Community Activation for Prevention), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT03089177 naunknown statusnot on this map

Community Activation for Prevention (CAPs): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Community Gardening

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Colorado, BoulderRan2017 to 2021Enrolled296ConditionsCancer, Obesity, Lifestyle, Sedentary, Physical ActivityArmsCommunity Garden Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
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

17 authors.

A VillalobosUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
K AlaimoMichigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
C EricksonUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
K K HarrallColorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
D H GlueckUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.
H BuchenauUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
M BuchenauDenver Urban Gardens, Denver, CO, USA.
E CoringratoUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
E DeckerUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
L FahnestockDenver Urban Gardens, Denver, CO, USA.
R F HammanColorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
J R HebertUniversity of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
T G HurleyUniversity of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
J A LeifermanColorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO, USA.
K LiColorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
P QuistUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
J S LittUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.

Funding

Methods and Software for Lifecourse Epidemiology Data and Sample Size AnalysisR01GM121081 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI DABELEA, DANA, GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2016 to 2019
$2.6M
A Master Course on Power for Multilevel and Longitudinal Health Behavior StudiesR25GM111901 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN, MULLER, KEITH E · 2014 to 2018
$1.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM121081NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM111901
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe and evaluate recruitment approaches for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community gardening in Denver, Colorado. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03089177).

methodsWe used community and staff feedback to adapt our recruitment approach from year 1 to year 2 of a multi-year RCT to address health behaviors related to cancer prevention. In year 2, we added a full-time recruitment coordinator, designed and implemented a tracking spreadsheet, and engaged advisory committee members, local garden leaders, and health partners in planning and outreach. Screening and consent rates, staff time and costs for years 1 and 2 are compared.

resultsIn year 1, recruitment methods yielded 136 initial contacts, 106 screenings and 64 consented participants. In year 2, enhanced staffing and outreach yielded 257 initial contacts, 193 screenings, and 123 consented participants. Personal referrals, health fairs, NextDoor, and fliers yielded the highest percentage of consented participants. School and community meetings yielded the lowest yield for potential participants. Spanish-speaking participants were mostly recruited by direct methods. Compared to year 1 recruitment, which required 707 h of staff time and cost $14,446, year 2 recruitment required 1224 h of staff time and cost $22,992. Average cost for retained participants was $226 (year 1) and $186 (year 2). DISCUSSION: Those planning pragmatic clinical trials with recruitment in multi-ethnic communities can use the results from this study to understand the efficacy of techniques, and to budget costs for recruitment. While our culturally-tailored recruitment methods cost more, they provided more effective and efficient ways to reach recruitment goals.

Indexed as

Cancer preventionClinical trialCommunity-levelGardensHealth behavior changeRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID31799473
PMCPMC6883325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.