Background Racial/ethnic minority patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials. Efforts to address barriers to participation may improve representation, thus enhancing our understanding of how research findings apply to more diverse populations. Methods The IDEAS (Information, Description, Education, Assistance, and Support) for a Healthy Baby study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to reduce barriers to using publicly reported quality data for low-income, racial/ethnic minority women. We used strategies grounded in a health equity framework to address barriers to recruitment and retention in three domains: preparation, process, and patient-centeredness. “Preparation” included teaching study staff about health inequities, role-playing skills to develop rapport and trust, and partnering with clinic staff. “Processes” included use of electronic registration systems to pre-screen potential candidates and determine when eligible participants were in clinic and an electronic database to track patients through the study. Use of a flexible protocol, stipends, and consideration of literacy levels promoted “patient-centeredness.” Results We anticipated needing to recruit 800 women over 18 months to achieve a completion goal of 650. Using the recruitment and retention strategies outlined above, we recruited 746 women in 15 months, achieving higher recruitment (87.1 %) and retention rates (97.3 %) than we had anticipated. Discussion These successful recruitment and retention strategies used for a large RCT promoted inclusivity and accessibility. Researchers seeking to recruit racial and ethnic minority pregnant women in similar settings may find the preparation, process, and patient-centered strategies used in this study applicable for their own studies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01784575, 1R21HS021864-01

This longitudinal study of 100 couples assessed individual and dyadic processes associated with romantic conflict recovery, or how couples behave in the moments following conflict. Couples completed measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance; a conflict discussion during which affect, behavior, and conflict resolution were coded; a cool-down discussion during which post-conflict behavior was coded; and measures of relationship satisfaction and stability one year later. Recovery sabotage (negative behavior and perseveration on conflict in the moments following conflict) was associated with high attachment anxiety and low avoidance. Recovery sabotage was unrelated to affect expressed during conflict and was instead tied to whether partners aired or suppressed grievances. Consistent with the demand-withdraw conflict pattern, recovery sabotage was associated with lower actor conflict avoidance but higher partner conflict avoidance. These effects were independent of conflict resolution, which was not significantly associated with recovery sabotage when other features of conflict were controlled. Recovery sabotage and conflict resolution also differentially predicted satisfaction and stability one year later. Findings suggest recovery sabotage is a distinct, developmentally organized relationship process tied to attachment history and behavioral, rather than affective, transactions between partners during conflict.

No abstract