Strong, Smart and Bold Strategies for Improving Attendance and Retention in an After-School Intervention

Hayes, Suzanne Markoe; Chapple, Sabrina; Ramírez, Cristina Heras

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.030

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Collaborating withprimary and secondary schools (both public and private)to recruit participants and implementresearch is useful, especially whenthe populations of focus are school-age children and adolescents (Bartlett& Shelton, 2010; Hayes, Chapple, & Ramirez, 2014). The implementation of school-based research projectsmake it possible to obtaina number of diverse participants from atarget population(Alibali& Nathan, 2010; Mishna, Muskat,& Cook, 2012).…”

Section: Advantages Of Partnering With Schoolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Schools as Sites for Recruiting Participants and Implementing Research

Bartlett

Wright

Olarinde

et al. 2017

Journal of Community Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schoolscan be a valuable resourcefor recruitment of participants for research involving children, adolescents, and parents. Awareness of the benefits and challenges of working with schools canassist researchersin developing effective school partnerships.This articlediscusses theadvantagesof conducting research within the school system as well as the challenges that may also arise.Such challenges include developing key contacts, building relationships, logistical arrangements, and facilitating trust in the research topic and team. Suggestions for strategies to forge successful collaborative relationships with schoolsare provided.

show abstract

Section: Advantages Of Partnering With Schoolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Schools as Sites for Recruiting Participants and Implementing Research

Bartlett

Wright

Olarinde

et al. 2017

Journal of Community Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many articles described study team observations and “lessons learned” regarding use of different recruitment and retention approaches or frameworks, with some focusing on how recruitment and retention approaches had evolved over the course of a study. In most cases, these articles were narrative summaries of investigator experiences, 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 although, in some cases, the conclusions were supported by completing analysis of study records or interviews or by conducting focus groups or surveys with study staff, site personnel, or participants. 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 Two articles compared recruitment or retention outcomes across similar studies that used different recruitment or retention methods or frameworks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The articles summarized 31 studies, with the study recruitment or retention setting varying across articles and sometimes within an article. The majority of the articles reported on at least one study conducted entirely in an urban or suburban community setting 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ( n = 15 articles, 56%) or an unspecified community setting 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 ( n = 8 articles, 30%). Fewer articles reported on studies with recruitment or retention efforts that the investigators characterized as spanning both urban and rural community settings 31 , 36 , 40 , 43 , 46 ( n = 5 articles, 19%) or on studies with recruitment or retention efforts that occurred exclusively or predominantly in areas that investigators defined as rural 22 , 28 , 29 , 35 , 40 ( n = 5 articles, 19%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitators and barriers to pediatric clinical trial recruitment and retention in rural and community settings: A scoping review of the literature

Watson

Smith

Snowden

et al. 2022

Clinical Translational Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children in rural settings are under‐represented in clinical trials, potentially contributing to rural health disparities. We performed a scoping review describing available literature on barriers and facilitators impacting participation in pediatric clinical trials in rural and community‐based (nonclinical) settings. Articles identified via PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were independently double‐screened at title/abstract and full‐text levels to identify articles meeting eligibility criteria. Included articles reported on recruitment or retention activities for US‐based pediatric clinical studies conducted in rural or community‐based settings and were published in English through January 2021. Twenty‐seven articles describing 31 studies met inclusion criteria. Most articles reported on at least one study conducted in an urban or suburban or unspecified community setting ( n = 23 articles; 85%); fewer ( n = 10; 37%) reported on studies that spanned urban and rural settings or were set in rural areas. More studies discussed recruitment facilitators ( n = 25 studies; 81%) and barriers ( n = 19; 61%) versus retention facilitators ( n = 15; 48%) and barriers ( n = 8; 26%). Descriptions of recruitment and retention barriers and facilitators were primarily experiential or subjective. Recruitment and retention facilitators were similar across settings and included contacts/reminders, community engagement, and relationship‐building, consideration of participant logistics, and incentives. Inadequate staff and resources were commonly cited recruitment and retention barriers. Few studies have rigorously examined optimal ways to recruit and retain rural participants in pediatric clinical trials. To expand the evidence base, future studies examining recruitment and retention strategies should systematically assess and report rurality and objectively compare relative impact of different strategies.

show abstract

“…The smart schools plan is an initiative in accordance with the information age that makes fundamental changes in the teaching-learning process by integrating information technology and curriculum (1). The term "smart schools training courses" refers to a group of educational units that work flexibly towards the capabilities and features of students and learners to prepare for the future (2). Education in smart schools seeks to make learning more interesting, exciting, and meaningful for students and involve the mind, spirit, and body of learners in the learning process (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to Improve Teaching-Learning Process in Smart Schools in Terms of Teaching Method

Dolati

Jamshidi

Beidokhti

2016

Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The rapid changes and breakthroughs in technology have affected teaching and learning methods. Accordingly, this study aimed to identify strategies related to teaching methods to improve the teaching-learning process in smart schools in Semnan province. Methods: This combined exploratory research first employed the qualitative method and then the quantitative method. Interviews and quantitative content analysis were used in the qualitative part, and a cross-sectional survey was used in the quantitative part. The results of the analysis and in-depth study of theoretical foundations were set into the form of a questionnaire made by the researcher. Content validity was determined by experts, and reliability of the questionnaire was determined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient as 0.77 in the desirable status and 0.92 in the status quo. In the quantitative part, the research questionnaire was completed by 310 teachers, principals, and information and communication technology experts who were selected by stratified sampling in the year 2015. For data analysis, chi-square tests with a Friedman significance level of 0.05 and SPSS version 22 were used. Results:The results showed that collaborative methods of teaching ranked first in utmost importance with an average of 4.53 in the significance level of 0.05, use of educational software in teaching ranked second with an average of 4.29, controlling and directing the class with a variety of teaching-learning strategies ranked third with an average of 4.26, and the student-centered teaching method with an average of 4.15 ranked fourth in improving the teaching-learning process in smart schools. Conclusions: Based on the results, it can be deduced that the collaborative teaching method and use of educational software in teaching can improve the teaching-learning process in smart schools.

show abstract

Strong, Smart and Bold Strategies for Improving Attendance and Retention in an After-School Intervention

Cited by 11 publications

References 11 publications

Schools as Sites for Recruiting Participants and Implementing Research

Schools as Sites for Recruiting Participants and Implementing Research

Facilitators and barriers to pediatric clinical trial recruitment and retention in rural and community settings: A scoping review of the literature

Strategies to Improve Teaching-Learning Process in Smart Schools in Terms of Teaching Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About