A Comparison of a Centralized Versus De-centralized Recruitment Schema in Two Community-Based Participatory Research Studies for Cancer Prevention

• Published in: Journal of community health Vol. 40; no. 2; pp. 251 - 259
• Main Authors: Adams, Swann Arp, Heiney, Sue P., Brandt, Heather M., Wirth, Michael D., Khan, Samira, Johnson, Hiluv, Davis, Lisa, Wineglass, Cassandra M., Warren-Jones, Tatiana Y., Felder, Tisha M., Drayton, Ruby F., Davis, Briana, Farr, Deeonna E., Hébert, James R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Boston Springer Science + Business Media 01.04.2015; Springer US; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; African Americans; Black or African American; Cancer; Community and Environmental Psychology; Community involvement; Community Relations; Community-Based Participatory Research - methods; Diet; Eating Habits; Ethics; Exercise; Female; Health Education - organization & administration; Health Promotion; Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neoplasms - ethnology; Neoplasms - prevention & control; ORIGINAL PAPER; Participatory Research; Patient Selection; Prevention; Public Health; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recruitment; Research Design; Retention; School Holding Power; Cancer prevention; Retention; Community based participatory research; Behavioral intervention; African American; Recruitment
• ISSN: 0094-5145; 1573-3610
• DOI: 10.1007/s10900-014-9924-9

Use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches is increasing with the goal of making more meaningful and impactful advances in eliminating cancer-related health disparities. While many reports have espoused its advantages, few investigations have focused on comparing CBPR-oriented recruitment and retention. Consequently, the purpose of this analysis was to report and compare two different CBPR approaches in two cancer prevention studies. We utilized frequencies and Chisquared tests to compare and contrast subject recruitment and retention for two studies that incorporated a randomized, controlled intervention design of a dietary and physical activity intervention among African Americans (AA). One study utilized a de-centralized approach to recruitment in which primary responsibility for recruitment was assigned to the general AA community of various church partners whereas the other incorporated a centralized approach to recruitment in which a single lay community individual was hired as research personnel to lead recruitment and intervention delivery. Both studies performed equally well for both recruitment and retention (75 and 88 % recruitment rates and 71 and 66 % retention rates) far exceeding those rates traditionally cited for cancer clinical trials (~5 %). The de-centralized approach to retention appeared to result in statistically greater retention for the control participants compared to the centralized approach (77 vs. 51 %, p < 0.01). Consequently, both CBPR approaches appeared to greatly enhance recruitment and retention rates of AA populations. We further note lessons learned and challenges to consider for future research opportunities.