Skip to main content

Table 4 Retention strategies described in articles reviewed

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 Retention strategy   Retention rate
Intervention design Incentive Project bond Participant convenience Participant tracking
Davis et al. [15] Run-in phase Weekly grocery gift cards Transportation support 79.4 % (54/68)
Ventura et al. [16]
Azevedo et al. [17] Rewards for retention 100 % (252/252)
Berry et al. [1820] 1) Delayed intervention for control group
2) Counseling or support
1) Exercise equipment
2) Money for data collection
3) Food
4) Gifts
1) Regular contact
2) Refrigerator magnet
3) Building staff–participant relationship
1) Reminder message
2) Flexible data collection days
3) Childcare
4) Transportation support
1) Complete contact information
2) Toll-free line
3) Tracking letter
89.1 % (638/716)
Elizondo-Montemayor et al. [21] Building staff–participant relationship Reminder message 80.8 % (101/125)
Black et al. [24, 25] Culturally sensitive 78.3 % (184/235)
Hurley et al. [26]
Witherspoon et al. [27]
Weigensberg et al. [28]   Transportation support Make-up session 82.9 % (29/35)
Ritchie et al. [33] 1) Alternative intervention for control group
2) Counseling or support
3) Culturally sensitive
1) Exercise equipment
2) Recipe books
1) Building staff–participant relationship
2) Regular contact
Transportation support 57.9 % (136/235)
Sharma et al. [34]
Burnet et al. [37] 1) Culturally sensitive
2) Activities at YMCA and grocery stores
Building staff–participant relationship 1) Convenient intervention sites
2) Transportation support
3) Child care
62.1 % (18/29)
Davis et al. [3840] 1) Weekly prizes
2) Increasing money for data collections
3) Food at intervention session
Regular contact Transportation support 94.1 % (209/222)
Tkacz et al. [41]
Petty et al. [42]
Wickham et al. [44] YMCA membership
Bean et al. [45] 1) YMCA membership
2) Grocery store gift card for data collection
Wysocki et al. [46, 47] Alternative intervention for control group 1) Money for each data collection
2) Money for completing all intervention sessions
96.6 % (115/119)
Wysocki et al. [4850] Alternative intervention for control group 1) Money for each data collection
2) Money for completion of all intervention sessions
88.5 % (92/104)
Ellis et al. [51, 52] Alternative intervention for control group Convenient intervention sites 92.9 % (118/127)
Story et al. [2] 1) Alternative intervention for control group
2) Fun intervention activities
3) Culturally sensitive
1) Gift for intervention attendance
2) Money
3) Increasing money for data collections
4) Additional money for blood draw
5) Food
1) Family nights
2) Regular contact
3) Build relationship between study and broader community
1) Convenient intervention sites
2) Flexible study procedures and measurement visits
3) Home visits for data collection
4) Transportation support
5) Childcare
6) Email and telephone reminders
1) Complete contact information
2) Tracking database
3) Calls from ‘non-identifiable’ cell phones
Phase I:
Rochon et al. [53]
Kumanyika et al. [54, 55] 91.4 % (32/35) and 100 % (60/60)
Klesges et al. [56, 57] Phase II:
Robinson et al. [58, 59] 80.2 % (243/303) and 86.2 % (225/261)
Stockton et al. [60]
Natale et al. [61] Alternative intervention for control group Incentives (not specified) Regular contact
Nansel et al. [62] Alternative intervention for control group 1) Money for completing all data collections
2) Additional money for child providing blood glucose meter data
1) Appointment reminder calls
2) Follow-up calls after appointment
1) Transportation support
2) Midpoint evaluations by telephone
92.3 % (360/390)
Janicke et al. [63] 1) Delayed intervention for control group
2) Proper participant goals
3) Person-centered intervention
1) Drawing for gift card at weekly child session
2) Gift card per family for each session
3) Money for data collections
4) Food
1) Build community connections
2) Regular contact
3) Phone calls to participants after missed sessions
Make-up sessions 87.1 % (81/93)
Follansbee-Junger et al. [64]
Radcliff et al. [65]