ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
CAPS on the move: Crafting an approach to recruitment for a randomized controlled trial of community gardening.
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.
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.
Community Activation for Prevention (CAPs): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Community Gardening
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A process evaluation of a randomized-controlled trial of community gardening to improve health behaviors and reduce stress and anxiety.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Effects of a community gardening intervention on diet, physical activity, and anthropometry outcomes in the USA (CAPS): an observer-blind, randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Planetary health · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
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
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.