Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research

Safi, Amelia Greiner; Reyes, Carolyn; Jesch, Emma; Steinhardt, Joseph; Niederdeppe, Jeff; Skurka, Chris; Kalaji, Motasem; Scolere, Leah; Byrne, Sahara

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112597

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, even in a targeted recruitment effort, proactively identifying potential bias in a recruitment channel is important for research planning. As noted by Safi et al [45], although different types of recruitment channels may reach socioeconomically disadvantaged participants generally, the channels may differ in the extent of disadvantage among participants recruited by each.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, similar to this study, previous research found variation in characteristics of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations across recruitment channel types. A comparison of in-person vs web-based recruitment of adults of low socioeconomic status found that 45% of those recruited in person had annual incomes of <US $10,000 compared with only 16% of those recruited through the web [45]. Thus, even in a targeted recruitment effort, proactively identifying potential bias in a recruitment channel is important for research planning.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study

Alcaraz¹,

Burnham²

2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Engaging socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in health research is vital to understanding and, ultimately, eliminating health-related disparities. Digital communication channels are increasingly used to recruit study participants, and recent trends indicate a growing need to partner with the social service sector to improve population health. However, few studies have recruited participants from social service settings using multiple digital channels. Objective This study aimed to recruit and survey 3791 adult clients of a social service organization via telephone and digital channels. This paper aimed to describe recruitment outcomes across five channels and compare participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. Methods The Cancer Communication Channels in Context Study recruited and surveyed adult clients of 2-1-1, a social service–focused information and referral system, using five channels: telephone, website, text message, web-based live chat, and email. Participants completed surveys administered either by phone (if recruited by phone) or on the web (if recruited from digital channels, ie, website, text message, Web-based live chat, or email). Measures for the current analysis included demographic and health characteristics. Results A total of 3293 participants were recruited, with 1907 recruited by phone and 1386 recruited from digital channels. Those recruited by phone had a moderate study eligibility rate (42.23%) and the highest survey completion rate (91.24%) of all channels. Individuals recruited by text message had a high study eligibility rate (94.14%) yet the lowest survey completion rate (74.0%) of all channels. Sample accrual goals were achieved for phone, text message, and website recruitment. Multivariable analyses found differences in participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. Compared with participants recruited by phone, those recruited from digital channels were younger (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.96-0.97) and more likely to be female (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88), married (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22-1.89), and other than non-Hispanic black (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.22-1.79). Those recruited via phone also were more likely to have more than a high school education (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.67-2.82), have a household income ≥US $25,000 a year (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.56-2.61), and have children living in the home (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.51). Additionally, participants recruited from digital channels were less likely than those recruited by phone to have public health insurance (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90) and more likely to report better overall health (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.27-1.83 for good-to-excellent health). Conclusions Findings indicate the feasibility and utility of recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged adults from the social service sector using multiple communication channels, including digital channels. As social service–based health research evolves, strategic recruitment using a combination of traditional and digital channels may be warranted to avoid underrepresentation of highly medically vulnerable individuals, which could exacerbate disparities in health.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Comparison With Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study

Alcaraz¹,

Burnham²

2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, telephone and internet-based surveys may miss disadvantaged and highly vulnerable populationsthose who may be at the greatest risk of morbidity and mortality and who would benefit the most from COVID-19 vaccination. 6,10,[16][17][18][19][20] Furthermore, by focusing only on vaccine hesitancy and not addressing vaccine acceptance, it is possible that important and modifiable factors that can lead to increased vaccination rates are overlooked.…”

Section: Importancementioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Associated With Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-Sectional Analysis

Baumann

Rodriguez

DeLaroche

et al. 2022

Annals of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective At a time when the COVID19 vaccine was approved for everyone > 12 years of age, we sought to identify characteristics and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of parents of children aged 3-16 years presenting to one of 9 emergency departments from June-August 2021 to assess parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Using multiple variable regression, we ascertained which factors were associated with parental and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. Results Of 1491 parents approached, 1298 (87%) participated of which 50% of parents and 27% of their children > 12 years of age were vaccinated. Characteristics associated with parental COVID-19 vaccination were trust in scientists [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 5.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.65-7.15], recent influenza vaccination (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.98-3.58), college degree (aOR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.36-2.85), increasing parental age (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45-2.22), friend/family member hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05-1.72) and higher income (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.27-2.00). Characteristics associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccination (≥ 12 years) or intended COVID-19 pediatric vaccination (children < 12 years) were parental trust in scientists (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 3.65-7.88), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29-2.77), trust in the media (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.19-2.37), parental college degree (aOR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.01-2.20), and increasing parental age (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01-1.57). Conclusions COVID-19 vaccination acceptance was low. Trust in scientists had the strongest association with parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for both parents and their children.

show abstract

“…The major limitation of most prior investigations of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is that they have been primarily conducted online or by telephone [ 4 – 8 ], a sampling method that may miss medically underserved and disadvantaged populations and may not reflect the attitudes of patients during true healthcare encounters [ 9 – 11 ]. The emergency department (ED) setting has been commonly described by policymakers as “the safety net of the safety net” [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department—PROCOVAXED: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Rodriguez

O’Laughlin

Eucker

et al. 2022

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial, we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Methods This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 1-week periods to the intervention and 30 1-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: (1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; (2) incarceration; (3) psychiatric chief complaint; and (4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks, participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-min video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by an ED physician or nurse); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately, an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients. Discussion Highlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs. Conclusions Toward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Trial status We began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT05142332. Registered 02 December 2021.

show abstract

Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research

Cited by 12 publications

References 41 publications

Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study

Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study

Factors Associated With Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-Sectional Analysis

PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department—PROCOVAXED: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About