This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gren, L. Articles by Marcus, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gren, L. Articles by Marcus, P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Recruitment methods employed in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial

University of Utah, lisa.gren{at}hsc.utah.edu

Karen Broski

Henry Ford Health System

Jeffery Childs

University of Utah

Jill Cordes

University of Minnesota

Deborah Engelhard

University of Minnesota

Betsy Gahagan

University of Pittsburgh

Eduard Gamito

University of Colorado

Vivien Gardner

Washington University

Mindy Geisser

University of Minnesota

Darlene Higgins

University of Alabama

Victoria Jenkins

Pacific Health Research Institute

Lois Lamerato

Henry Ford Health System

Karen Lappe

Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation

Heidi Lowery

Washington University

Colleen McGuire

Georgetown University

Mollie Miedzinski

Westat Inc.

Sheryl Ogden

University of Colorado

Sally Tenorio

University of Colorado

Gavin Watt

University of Minnesota

Bonita Wohlers

St. Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute

Pamela Marcus

National Cancer Institute

Background The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is a US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether certain screening tests reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. To obtain adequate statistical power, it was necessary to enroll over 150,000 healthy volunteers. Recruitment began in 1993 and ended in 2001.

Purpose Our goal is to evaluate the success of recruitment methods employed by the 10 PLCO screening centers. We also provide estimates of recruitment yield and cost for our most successful strategy, direct mail.

Methods Each screening center selected its own methods of recruitment. Methods changed throughout the recruitment period as needed. For this manuscript, representatives from each screening center provided information on methods utilized and their success.

Results In the United States between 1993 and 2001, ten screening centers enrolled 154,934 study participants. Based on participant self-report, an estimated 95% of individuals were recruited by direct mail. Overall, enrollment yield for direct mail was 1.0%. Individual center enrollment yield ranged from 0.7% to 3.8%. Cost per enrolled participant was $9.64—35.38 for direct mail, excluding personnel costs.

Limitations Numeric data on recruitment processes were not kept consistently at individual screening centers. Numeric data in this manuscript are based on the experiences of 5 of the 10 centers.

Conclusions Direct mail, using rosters of names and addresses from profit and not-for-profit (including government) organizations, was the most successful and most often used recruitment method. Other recruitment strategies, such as community outreach and use of mass media, can be an important adjunct to direct mail in recruiting minority populations. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 52—59. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Clinical Trials, Vol. 6, No. 1, 52-59 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774508100974


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?