CDC STACKS serves as an archival repository of CDC-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other public health information authored or co-authored by CDC or funded partners.
As a repository, CDC STACKS retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i
A Comparison of a Centralized Versus De-Centralized Recruitment Schema in Two Community-Based Participatory Research Studies for Cancer Prevention
-
4 2015
-
-
Source: J Community Health. 40(2):251-259
[PDF-1.01 MB]
Details:
-
Alternative Title:J Community Health
-
Personal Author:
-
Description:Use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches is increasing with the goal of making more meaningful and impactful advances in eliminating cancer-related health disparities. While many reports have espoused its advantages, few investigations have focused on comparing CBPR-oriented recruitment and retention. Consequently, the purpose of this analysis was to report and compare two different CBPR approaches in two cancer prevention studies. We utilized frequencies and Chi-squared tests to compare and contrast subject recruitment and retention for two studies that incorporated a randomized, controlled intervention design of a dietary and physical activity intervention among African Americans (AA). One study utilized a de-centralized approach to recruitment in which primary responsibility for recruitment was assigned to the general AA community of various church partners whereas the other incorporated a centralized approach to recruitment in which a single lay community individual was hired as research personnel to lead recruitment and intervention delivery. Both studies performed equally well for both recruitment and retention (75 and 88 % recruitment rates and 71 and 66 % retention rates) far exceeding those rates traditionally cited for cancer clinical trials (~5 %). The de-centralized approach to retention appeared to result in statistically greater retention for the control participants compared to the centralized approach (77 vs. 51 %, p < 0.01). Consequently, both CBPR approaches appeared to greatly enhance recruitment and retention rates of AA populations. We further note lessons learned and challenges to consider for future research opportunities.
-
Subjects:
-
Keywords:
-
Source:
-
Pubmed ID:25086566
-
Pubmed Central ID:PMC4315761
-
Document Type:
-
Funding:
-
Volume:40
-
Issue:2
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
