Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39623293›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Participant engagement and involvement in longitudinal cohort studies: qualitative insights from a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.

Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Nanna A G Fredheim, Charlotte Alison Jevne, Bojana Milanovic Kleven, Marie Aline Charles, Janine F Felix, Robin Flaig, María Paz García, Alexandra Havdahl, Shahid Islam and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. 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. Engagement in Cancer Epidemiology Cohorts.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Outline: The Long-Term Impact of Exercise on Adolescent Growth and Development.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  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

19 authors.

Isabelle Budin-LjøsneDepartment of Food Safety, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, Skøyen, Oslo, NO-0213, Norway. Isabelle.budin.ljosne@fhi.no.ORCID 0000-0002-4610-1662
Nanna A G FredheimKristiania University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6110-125X
Charlotte Alison JevneDepartment of Health Data Reception, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Bojana Milanovic KlevenResearch Administrative Support, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Marie Aline CharlesIned Inserm EFS Joint Unit Elfe, Aubervilliers, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4025-4390
Janine F FelixThe Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9801-5774
Robin FlaigUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8007-1279
María Paz GarcíaDepartment of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9970-6131
Alexandra HavdahlPsychGen Centre for Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9268-0423
Shahid IslamBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7424-4011
Shona M KerrMedical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4137-1495
Inger Kristine MederStatens Serum Institut, Danish National Biobank, Statens, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0743-419X
Lynn MolloyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, ALSPAC (Children of the 90s), University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Susan M B MortonResearch Institute for Innovative Solutions for Well-Being and Health (INSIGHT), Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Costanza PizziDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4519-2822
Aamnah RahmanBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3534-6100
Gonneke WillemsenDepartment of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3755-0236
Diane WoodThe Raine Study, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1108-5858
Jennifer R HarrisCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3249-8918

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00007/10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal cohort studies are pivotal to understand how socioeconomic, environmental, biological, and lifestyle factors influence health and disease. The added value of cohort studies increases as they accumulate life course data and expand across generations. Ensuring that participants stay motivated to contribute over decades of follow-up is, however, challenging. Participant engagement and involvement (PEI) aims to secure the long-term commitment of participants and promote researcher-participant interaction. This study explored PEI practices in a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.

methodsPurposive sampling was used to identify cohorts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Fourteen semi-structured digital interviews were conducted with cohort study representatives to explore strategies for participant recruitment, informed consent, communication of general and individual information to participants, data collection, and participant involvement. Experiences, resources allocated to PEI, and reflections on future PEI, were discussed. The interview data were analyzed using a content analysis approach and summary results were reviewed and discussed by the representatives.

resultsThe cohort studies used various strategies to recruit participants including support from health professionals and organizations combined with information on the studies' web sites and social media. New approaches such as intra-cohort recruitment, were being investigated. Most cohorts transitioned from paper-based to digital solutions to collect the participants' consent and data. While digital solutions increased efficiency, they also brought new challenges. The studies experimented with the use of participant advisory panels and focus groups to involve participants in making decisions, although their success varied across age and socio-economic background. Most representatives reported PEI resources to be limited and called for more human, technical, educational and financial resources to maximize the positive effects of PEI.

conclusionsThis study of PEI among well-established cohort studies underscores the importance of PEI for project sustainability and highlights key factors to consider in developing PEI. Our analysis shows that knowledge gaps exist regarding which approaches have highest impact on retention rates and are best suited for different participant groups. Research is needed to support the development of best practices for PEI as well as knowledge exchange between cohorts through network building.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionQualitative ResearchAdultAustraliaBirth CohortCohort StudiesEuropeFamilyFemaleHumansInformed ConsentLongitudinal StudiesMaleNew ZealandPatient ParticipationPregnancyCohort studiesLongitudinal studiesParticipant engagement and involvementTwin(s)

Identifiers

PMID39623293
PMCPMC11613753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.