背景:需要进行研究,以了解和解决高(≥20%终生)乳腺癌风险女性的风险管理障碍,但是招募这些人群进行研究是具有挑战性的。
目的:本文比较了用于横截面,高危女性的观察性研究。
方法:符合条件的参与者在出生时被分配为女性,年龄25-85岁,说英语,生活在美国,根据美国放射学会的定义,乳腺癌的风险很高。如果个人有乳腺癌病史,则将其排除在外,先前的双侧乳房切除术,磁共振成像的医学禁忌症,或者根据美国放射学会指南,筛查乳房X线照相术不是最新的。参与者从2020年8月到2021年1月使用以下机制招募:有针对性的Facebook广告,Twitter帖子,ResearchMatch(基于网络的研究招聘数据库),社区合作伙伴促销,纸质传单,和社区外展活动。有兴趣的个人被定向到一个安全的网站,有资格筛选问题。参与者在资格筛选期间自我报告招募方法。对于每个招聘策略,我们计算了合格受访者和完成调查的比率,每位合格参与者的费用,和参与者人口统计学。
结果:我们收到了对资格筛选员的1566份独特回复。参与者通常通过Facebook广告(724/1566,46%)和ResearchMatch(646/1566,41%)报告招聘。社区合作伙伴晋升导致合格受访者比例最高(24/46,52%),而ResearchMatch的合格受访者比例最低(73/646,11%)。口口相传是最具成本效益的招聘战略(每份已完成的调查答复4.66美元),纸质传单成本效益最低(每份已完成的调查答复1448.13美元)。合格受访者的人口特征因招聘策略而异:Twitter帖子和社区外展活动导致西班牙裔或拉丁裔女性比例最高(1/4,25%和2/6,33%,分别),和社区合作伙伴的晋升导致非西班牙裔黑人女性的比例最高(4/24,17%)。
结论:尽管招募策略对研究参与者的产量不同,总体结果支持在临床环境之外识别和招募乳腺癌高危女性的可行性.在规划针对高风险女性的未来研究时,研究人员必须平衡各种招聘策略的相关成本和参与者收益。
BACKGROUND: Research is needed to understand and address barriers to risk management for women at high (≥20% lifetime) risk for breast cancer, but recruiting this population for research studies is challenging.
OBJECTIVE: This paper compares a variety of recruitment strategies used for a cross-sectional, observational study of high-risk women.
METHODS: Eligible participants were assigned female at birth, aged 25-85 years, English-speaking, living in the United States, and at high risk for breast cancer as defined by the American College of Radiology. Individuals were excluded if they had a personal history of breast cancer, prior bilateral mastectomy, medical contraindications for magnetic resonance imaging, or were not up-to-date on screening mammography per American College of Radiology guidelines. Participants were recruited from August 2020 to January 2021 using the following mechanisms: targeted Facebook advertisements, Twitter posts, ResearchMatch (a web-based research recruitment database), community partner promotions, paper flyers, and community outreach events. Interested individuals were directed to a secure website with eligibility screening questions. Participants self-reported method of recruitment during the eligibility screening. For each recruitment strategy, we calculated the rate of eligible respondents and completed surveys, costs per eligible participant, and participant demographics.
RESULTS: We received 1566 unique responses to the eligibility screener. Participants most often reported recruitment via Facebook advertisements (724/1566, 46%) and ResearchMatch (646/1566, 41%). Community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of eligible respondents (24/46, 52%), while ResearchMatch had the lowest proportion of eligible respondents (73/646, 11%). Word of mouth was the most cost-effective recruitment strategy (US $4.66 per completed survey response) and paper flyers were the least cost-effective (US $1448.13 per completed survey response). The demographic characteristics of eligible respondents varied by recruitment strategy: Twitter posts and community outreach events resulted in the highest proportion of Hispanic or Latina women (1/4, 25% and 2/6, 33%, respectively), and community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of non-Hispanic Black women (4/24, 17%).
CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment strategies varied in their yield of study participants, results overall support the feasibility of identifying and recruiting women at high risk for breast cancer outside of clinical settings. Researchers must balance the associated costs and participant yield of various recruitment strategies in planning future studies focused on high-risk women.