Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 May 11;21(1):393.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04328-9.

Retaining participants in community-based health research: a case example on standardized planning and reporting

Nicole L A Catherine  1 , Rosemary Lever  2 , Lenora Marcellus  3 , Corinne Tallon  4 , Debbie Sheehan  2   5 , Harriet MacMillan  6 , Andrea Gonzalez  5 , Susan M Jack  5   6 , Charlotte Waddell  2
Affiliations
Review

Retaining participants in community-based health research: a case example on standardized planning and reporting

Nicole L A Catherine et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Effective strategies for participant retention are critical in health research to ensure validity, generalizability and efficient use of resources. Yet standardized guidelines for planning and reporting on retention efforts have been lacking. As with randomized controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review (SR) protocols, retention protocols are an opportunity to improve transparency and rigor. An RCT being conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada provides a case example for developing a priori retention frameworks for use in protocol planning and reporting.

Methods: The BC Healthy Connections Project RCT is examining the effectiveness of a nurse home-visiting program in improving child and maternal outcomes compared with existing services. Participants (N = 739) were girls and young women preparing to parent for the first time and experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Quantitative data were collected upon trial entry during pregnancy and during five follow-up interviews until participants' children reached age 2 years. A framework was developed to guide retention of this study population throughout the RCT. We reviewed relevant literature and mapped essential retention activities across the study planning, recruitment and maintenance phases. Interview completion rates were tracked.

Results: Results from 3302 follow-up interviews (in-person/telephone) conducted over 4 years indicate high completion rates: 90% (n = 667) at 34 weeks gestation; and 91% (n = 676), 85% (n = 626), 80% (n = 594) and 83% (n = 613) at 2, 10, 18 and 24 months postpartum, respectively. Almost all participants (99%, n = 732) provided ongoing consent to access administrative health data. These results provide preliminary data on the success of the framework.

Conclusions: Our retention results are encouraging given that participants were experiencing considerable socioeconomic disadvantage. Standardized retention planning and reporting may therefore be feasible for health research in general, using the framework we have developed. Use of standardized retention protocols should be encouraged in research to promote consistency across diverse studies, as now happens with RCT and SR protocols. Beyond this, successful retention approaches may help inform health policy-makers and practitioners who also need to better reach, engage and retain underserved populations.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01672060. Registered on 24 August 2012.

Keywords: Adolescents; Attrition; Pregnancy; Randomized controlled trial; Retention; Socioeconomic disadvantage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Ecological participant retention model. Adapted from Shumaker et al. and Marcellus, and applied by Meneses et al. and Salihu et al. [, –43]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Participant interview schedule and completion rates
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Magnusson D, Cairns RB. Developmental science: toward a unified framework. In: Cairns RB, Elder H, Costello EJ, editors. Developmental Science. New York; Cambridge University Press. 1996:7–30.
    1. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15:399. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-399. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Buscemi J, Blumstein L, Kong A, Stolley MR, Schiffer L, Odoms-Young A, et al. Retaining traditionally hard to reach participants: lessons learned from three childhood obesity studies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:98–104. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.03.014. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Odierna DH, Schmidt LA. The effects of failing to include hard-to-reach respondents in longitudinal surveys. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(8):1515–1520. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.111138. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Timpe Z, Winokur M. Integrating retention rates into economic analyses of prevention interventions. Prev Sci. 2019;20:566–574. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0958-6. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Associated data