2023
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cancer Loyalty Card Study (CLOCS): feasibility outcomes for an observational case–control study focusing on the patient interval in ovarian cancer

Abstract: ObjectivesOvarian cancer symptoms are often non-specific and can be normalised before patients seek medical help. The Cancer Loyalty Card Study investigated self-management behaviours of patients with ovarian cancer prior to their diagnosis using loyalty card data collected by two UK-based high street retailers. Here, we discuss the feasibility outcomes for this novel research.DesignObservational case–control study.SettingControl participants were invited to the study using social media and other sources from … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 19 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, the outcomes of this experiment informed the recruitment of the CLOCS participants. The authors gained further understanding of the potential limitations of recruiting participants to CLOCS and successfully recruited 249 participants using Facebook advertisements with the control message [ 47 ]. The cost per participant recruited was between US $12 and $19, which is comparable to and less than other health-related studies with a targeted population [ 48 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the outcomes of this experiment informed the recruitment of the CLOCS participants. The authors gained further understanding of the potential limitations of recruiting participants to CLOCS and successfully recruited 249 participants using Facebook advertisements with the control message [ 47 ]. The cost per participant recruited was between US $12 and $19, which is comparable to and less than other health-related studies with a targeted population [ 48 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%