Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32393334›Full record

ReviewTrials2020

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

Nicole L A Catherine, Rosemary Lever, Lenora Marcellus, Corinne Tallon, Debbie Sheehan, Harriet MacMillan, Andrea Gonzalez, Susan M Jack, Charlotte Waddell

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01672060 (A Scientific Evaluation of the Nurse-Family Partnership), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01672060 nacompletednot on this map

A Scientific Evaluation of the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) Program in British Columbia

TypeinterventionalSponsorSimon Fraser UniversityRan2013 to 2022Enrolled739ConditionsEffectiveness of Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) in BCArmsNurse-Family Partnership (NFP), Existing services
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Engaging Latino Families in a Sibling-Focused Family Prevention Program.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Health and incarceration research in Australia: a scoping review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Recruitment and retention of adolescents for an ecological momentary assessment measurement burst mental health study: The MHIM engagement strategy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nicole L A CatherineChildren's Health Policy Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Room 2431, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada. Nicole_catherine@sfu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1190-4326
Rosemary LeverChildren's Health Policy Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Room 2431, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada.
Lenora MarcellusSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Corinne TallonFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Debbie SheehanChildren's Health Policy Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Room 2431, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada.
Harriet MacMillanOfford Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Andrea GonzalezSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Susan M JackSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Charlotte WaddellChildren's Health Policy Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Room 2431, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada.

Funding

British Columbia Ministries of Health and Child and Family Development (CA) SL00444S02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsResults 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.

conclusionsOur 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01672060. Registered on 24 August 2012.

Indexed as

AdolescentBritish ColumbiaChild, PreschoolFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHouse CallsHumansInterviews as TopicModels, TheoreticalNurses, Community HealthParentingPatient SelectionPostpartum PeriodPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignAdolescentsAttritionPregnancyRandomized controlled trialRetentionSocioeconomic disadvantage

Identifiers

PMID32393334
PMCPMC7216482

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.