ArticleContemporary clinical trials2024
Comparison of recruitment methodologies for clinical trials: Results from the time for living and caring (TLC) intervention study.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying and Mapping Levels of Active Engagement Within an Arts-Based Intervention: A Qualitative Analysis and Conceptual Development.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Participant recruitment and retention in a longitudinal study: experience from SARS-CoV-2 cohort in Ethiopia.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Observational
- A Community-Based Approach to Refining the Enhancing Active Caregiver Training (EnACT) Intervention.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026Article
- Assessing the Time for Living and Caring (TLC) Study: Mixed-Methods Feasibility Study of a Web-Based Caregiver Intervention to Improve Respite.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Respite time-use among dementia caregivers.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Using community engagement withContemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Time for Living and Caring: An Online Intervention to Support Dementia Caregivers' Use of Respite.Innovation in aging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecruiting participants for research studies is a critical yet challenging task. Community-engaged recruitment strategies have gained prominence as effective means to engage diverse populations and ensure the representativeness of study samples. This case study aims to investigate the cost and effectiveness of various recruitment methods in enhancing research participation.
methodsA comparative approach was employed to assess the outcomes of five different recruitment strategies used in the Time for Living & Caring (TLC) research study. Data on recruitment success, participant demographics, and retention rates were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, including ANOVA and Chi-squares, to statistically compare the outcomes associated with 5 different recruitment methodologies. The recruitment methodologies included two community-engaged strategies (community partner referral and community-based recruiters), a clinical database, social media, and word-of-mouth referral.
conclusionThe meta-data used to build this methodological case study describe different recruitment methodologies that may be used for clinical trials. This data-driven evaluation provides examples and considerations for researchers when developing budgets and proposals for future clinical trials. The primary finding is that there are tradeoffs in terms of cost, time, labor, and ultimately the representativeness of the sample, based on the type of recruitment methodology chosen.
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.