Skip to main content

Table 2 Study recruitment: effectiveness, setting, strategies employed, and barriers reported

From: Recruitment and retention in obesity prevention and treatment trials targeting minority or low-income children: a review of the clinical trials registration database

Reference

Sample size

Reach (% capture)

Formative research

Recruitment duration

Recruitment setting

Recruitment strategies

Recruitment barriers

Hasson et al. [14]

58 families

11.6

Yes

–

–

–

–

Davis et al. [15]

68 families

17.0

Yes

–

–

–

–

Ventura et al. [16]

Azevedo et al. [17]

252 families

–

–

–

Community

–

–

Berry et al. [18–20]

358 parent–child dyads

27.5

Yes

2 years 9 months

School

1) Meeting with school staff

–

2) Printed study information

3) Presentation to children and parents

4) Printed study contact information

5) Friendly manner

Elizondo-Montemayor et al. [21]

125 caregiver–child dyads

9.6

–

–

School

–

–

Wang et al. [22, 23]

249 children

37.1

Yes

–

School

–

–

Black et al. [24, 25]

235 children

–

–

1 year 10 months

School

–

–

Hurley et al. [26]

Witherspoon et al. [27]

Weigensberg et al. [28]

35 adolescents

62.5

Yes

–

Pediatric clinics, health fairs

–

School vacation

Wilson et al. 2011 [29–31]

1422 children

91.0

Yes

–

School and home

1) Presentation to parents and students

–

2) Home visit

Naar-King et al. [32]

49 families

69.0

Yes

–

An urban adolescent medicine clinic

–

1) Time constraint;

2) Lack of interest

Ritchie et al. [33]

235 families

–

Yes

3 years

School, community

1) Announcements

1) Transportation;

Sharma et al. [34]

2) Incentives

2) Competing demands;

3) Distrust;

Eisenmann et al. [35]

434 families

57.0

–

–

School

–

–

Barkin et al. [36]

106 parent–child dyads

22.2

–

4–5 months

Cooperating community agencies such as social service agencies, pediatric clinics, community centers

1) Printed study information

1) Transportation;

2) Radio

2) On-site childcare

3) Participant referral

Burnet et al. [37]

29 families

–

Yes

–

Community, pediatric clinics

Printed study information

–

Davis et al. [38–40]

222 children

26.4 %

–

2 years 8 months

School

Printed study information

–

Tkacz et al. [41]

Petty et al. [42]

Madsen et al. [43]

156 children, six schools

11.7 % , 50 %, 89.7 %

Yes

–

School

Presentation to school staff

Change in school administration

Wickham et al. [44]

165 adolescents

–

–

2 years 4 months

Comprehensive weight management program

Healthcare provider referral

–

Bean et al. [45]

186 adolescents

–

Yes

2 years 11 months

Health care, school, community

Healthcare provider referral

–

Wysocki et al. [46, 47]

119 families

31.3 %

Yes

–

–

–

1) Transportation;

2) Time constraint

Wysocki et al. [48–50]

104 families

23.9 %

Yes

–

Pediatric diabetes centers

1) Mailed invitation letter

Funding limitation

2) Phone call

Ellis et al. [51, 52]

127 adolescents

69.8 %

Yes

–

Endocrinology clinic

–

–

Story et al. [2]

Phase I: 35–61 girls;

Phase I : not reported;

Yes

Phase I: 2.5–4 monthsa;

Community churches, community centers, community events and school

1) Active placebo study group

Phase I:

Rochon et al. [53]

Phase II: 261–303 girls

Phase II: 48.1 %-65.4 %

Phase II: 17 months

2) Media adverts, stories, interviews

1) No-treatment control group;

Kumanyika et al. [54, 55]

3) Flyers to homes

2) Parents interested in both child health and self-esteem programs, while children interested in fun programs;

Klesges et al. [56, 57]

4) Presentations to families at community and school

3) Blood draw.

Robinson et al. [58, 59]

5) Separate consent for blood draw, which was not required for participation

Phase II:

Stockton et al. [60]

1) School vacation

2) Study staff issues

3) Study site locations

Natale et al. [61]

1105 children

–

–

–

Child care center

–

–

Nansel et al. [62]

390 families

69.1 %

–

 

Pediatric endocrinology clinics

–

–

Janicke et al. [63]

93 parent–child dyads

83.8 %

Yes

 

Community and school

1) Printed study information

–

Follansbee-Junger et al. [64]

2) Community presentations

Radcliff et al. [65]

3) Toll-free line

  1. a11.7 % of screened schools, 50 % of eligible schools at principals’ meeting, 89.7 % of children