↓ Skip to main content

Four Methods of Recruiting Couples Into a Longitudinal Study of Physical Activity in People With Osteoarthritis: Recruitment, Retention, and Lessons Learned

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Four Methods of Recruiting Couples Into a Longitudinal Study of Physical Activity in People With Osteoarthritis: Recruitment, Retention, and Lessons Learned
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana L. Carthron, Ashley Phillips, Carmen C. Cuthbertson, Katrina R. Ellis, Mary Altpeter, Leigh F. Callahan, Stephanie Bahorski, Christine Rini

Abstract

Increases in physical activity can reduce joint pain among people with osteoarthritis (PWOA) who are insufficiently physically active. Because evidence suggests that social support from intimate partners may help PWOA become more active, researchers have been interested in recruiting couples to studies of physical activity interventions; however, little guidance exists describing efficient and effective strategies for engaging couples in research. We describe methods used to recruit couples and contrast methods in terms of the proportion of individuals enrolled, sample demographic composition, retention, and resources. We used four recruitment methods to enroll couples in a longitudinal study of PWOA: (1) visiting community sites, (2) sending university-wide emails, (3) contacting patients identified through electronic medical records (EMR), and (4) partnering with a county-based osteoarthritis (OA) research cohort. We found that these methods differed in their challenges and contribution to enrollment goals but demonstrated similar levels of retention. We contacted 747 PWOA; 56% were screened for eligibility and 23% enrolled in the study. The largest proportion of participants recruited were from the email method (35.1%), followed by the community (26%), EMR (22.0%), and OA cohort (19.6%). Couples enrolled through the different methods differed by age, employment, education, and household income. Across the methods for both PWOA and partners, over 80% of participants were non-Hispanic white, about 11% were non-Hispanic black, and 6-8% identified as another race. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 (17.9%) PWOA and 36 (20.8%) partners were lost to follow-up. Using four distinct recruitment methods allowed us to meet recruitment goals and provided a broader, more diverse population compared to using one method. We recommend that researchers consider several recruitment methods to meet enrollment goals, to ensure a diverse sample, and to match available resources. The lessons learned from this research fill a critical gap in the understanding of how to overcome barriers to recruiting and retaining couples in behavioral research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,184,882
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,535
of 10,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,110
of 329,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#33
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.