2017
DOI: 10.1177/1525822x17728346
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recruitment and Retention of Homeless Youth in a Substance Use and HIV-risk Reduction Program

Abstract: Conducting intervention studies with homeless populations can be difficult, particularly in terms of retaining participants across multiple sessions and locating them for subsequent follow-up assessments. Homeless youth are even more challenging to engage due to substance use, mental health problems, wariness of authority figures, and frequent relocations. This article describes methods used to successfully recruit a sample of 200 homeless youth from two drop-in centers in Los Angeles, engage them in a four-se… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

6
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(23 reference statements)
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, implementation challenges did not make this design a feasible option and there was concern about contamination across conditions. A group-randomized design for this evaluation has distinct advantages, and we maximized the comparability of the intervention and control groups by having each drop-in center serve as both intervention and control site on an alternating basis (with a wash-out period between the intervention and control phases within site) and using the same procedures at each drop-in center to identify and recruit participants for the study (**Garvey, Pedersen, D’Amico, Ewing, & Tucker, in press). The control group received “usual care,” which included access to all of the basic services (e.g., food, hygiene), case management, and programs that were available at the drop-in center at the time of the study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, implementation challenges did not make this design a feasible option and there was concern about contamination across conditions. A group-randomized design for this evaluation has distinct advantages, and we maximized the comparability of the intervention and control groups by having each drop-in center serve as both intervention and control site on an alternating basis (with a wash-out period between the intervention and control phases within site) and using the same procedures at each drop-in center to identify and recruit participants for the study (**Garvey, Pedersen, D’Amico, Ewing, & Tucker, in press). The control group received “usual care,” which included access to all of the basic services (e.g., food, hygiene), case management, and programs that were available at the drop-in center at the time of the study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants were compensated $20 for the baseline survey and $30 for the three-month follow-up survey. We obtained extensive tracking and locator information from participants at baseline and were able to complete follow-up surveys with 95% of intervention participants (Garvey, Pedersen, D’Amico, Ewing, & Tucker, in press). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also difficult to establish a stable mode of contact as they often move frequently between different service organizations, shelters, and cities [ 2 ]. Additionally, transient living situations complicate service provision and make it difficult to engage youth in longitudinal research and evaluation of interventions in this population [ 19 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%