Table 2 Perceived top three recruitment strategies and barriers reported by each trial
Minnesota (n = 534) | Vanderbilt (n = 610) | Stanford (n = 241) | CWRU (n = 360) |
|---|---|---|---|
Top three strategies | |||
Staff working hours to meet participants needs (morning, afternoon, and evening) | Building trusted relationships in our community over the prior 5 years and soliciting input from trusted community leaders to guide our processes from the outset | Staff who are culturally competent and able to communicate the requirements of the research study in language accessible to our sample | Long-term working relationship with school (nurses); families trust their schools |
Clear, detailed protocols allowed for systematic recruitment | Used the community liaison model. Essentially, leveraging trust and trusting relationships | Face-to-face recruitment, and actively approaching potential participants in their community | Staff were well trained and diligent |
Repeated contacts | Creating a tracking database to identify real-time staffing needs and return on investment | Multiple contacts with families to ensure that they understand the expectations of the trial, maintain interest, and are committed to participating in the research | Personal style of recruitment staff (warm, friendly, and professional) |
Top three barriers | |||
Accelerometer wear time requirements | Not valuing prevention, since their child was well and they wanted to avoid the stigma of being labelled “unwell” | Family schedules that are unpredictable and very busy | Accurate phone numbers |
Loss of interest between home visits 1 and 2 | The level of commitment over 3 years seemed burdensome and unrealistic, and not wanting to lose face by dropping out later | Lack of reliable transportation for some | Length of study, 3 years |
Lack of understanding or knowledge of the research | Eligibility included BMI over 50% but not yet obese; this narrow eligibility requirement meant it took much longer to recruit than would have been the case with our originally proposed criteria, of which we had prior experience and success | Finding eligible families in our community setting without having a list of potentially eligible patients or school class lists of names and contact information | Reaching a parent or guardian in each household |