2019 Articles
Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse recruitment methods for a genetic screening study
Purpose: Recruitment of participants from diverse backgrounds is crucial to the generalizability of genetic research, but has proven challenging. We retrospectively evaluated recruitment methods used for a study on return of genetic results.
Methods: The costs of study design, development, and participant enrollment were calculated, and the characteristics of the participants enrolled through the seven recruitment methods were examined.
Results: A total of 1118 participants provided consent, a blood sample, and questionnaire data. The estimated cost across recruitment methods ranged from $579 to $1666 per participant and required a large recruitment team. Recruitment methods using flyers and staff networks were the most cost-efficient and resulted in the highest completion rate. Targeted sampling that emphasized the importance of Latino/a participation, utilization of translated materials, and in-person recruitments contributed to enrolling a demographically diverse sample.
Conclusions: Although all methods were deployed in the same hospital or neighborhood and shared the same staff, each recruitment method was different in terms of cost and characteristics of the enrolled participants, suggesting the importance of carefully choosing the recruitment methods based on the desired composition of the final study sample. This analysis provides information about the effectiveness and cost of different methods to recruit adults for genetic research.
Subjects
Files
- Klitzman_Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse.pdf application/pdf 390 KB Download File
Also Published In
- Title
- Genetics in Medicine
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0497-y
More About This Work
- Academic Units
- Biomedical Informatics
- College of Physicians and Surgeons
- Epidemiology
- Institute for Genomic Medicine
- Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research
- Medicine
- Neurology
- Pediatrics
- Psychiatry
- Sociomedical Sciences
- Published Here
- July 21, 2020
Notes
See a correction to this article at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0528-8: The original version of this Article contained an error in the undergraduate degree awarded to the author Ian Halim, which was incorrectly given as BS. This has now been corrected to BA in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.