Recruitment methods employed in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial

Background The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is a US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether certain screening tests reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. To obtain adequate statistical power, it was necessary to enroll over 150,000 healthy volunteers. Recruitment began in 1993 and ended in 2001. Purpose Our goal is to evaluate the success of recruitment methods employed by the 10 PLCO screening centers. We also provide estimates of recruitment yield and cost for our most successful strategy, direct mail. Methods Each screening center selected its own methods of recruitment. Methods changed throughout the recruitment period as needed. For this manuscript, representatives from each screening center provided information on methods utilized and their success. Results In the United States between 1993 and 2001, ten screening centers enrolled 154,934 study participants. Based on participant self-report, an estimated 95% of individuals were recruited by direct mail. Overall, enrollment yield for direct mail was 1.0%. Individual center enrollment yield ranged from 0.7% to 3.8%. Cost per enrolled participant was $9.64—35.38 for direct mail, excluding personnel costs. Limitations Numeric data on recruitment processes were not kept consistently at individual screening centers. Numeric data in this manuscript are based on the experiences of 5 of the 10 centers. Conclusions Direct mail, using rosters of names and addresses from profit and not-for-profit (including government) organizations, was the most successful and most often used recruitment method. Other recruitment strategies, such as community outreach and use of mass media, can be an important adjunct to direct mail in recruiting minority populations. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 52—59. http://ctj.sagepub.com

[1]  John K. Gohagan,et al.  The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial , 2000 .

[2]  J. Williamson,et al.  Recruitment strategies in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[3]  J. Connett,et al.  Recruitment of participants in the Lung Health Study, II: Assessment of recruiting strategies. , 1993, Controlled clinical trials.

[4]  S. Jackson,et al.  Direct mailing was a successful recruitment strategy for a lung-cancer screening trial. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  V. Shavers,et al.  Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. , 2000, Journal of the National Medical Association.

[6]  G. Omenn,et al.  Strategies for Recruitment to a Population-based Lung Cancer Prevention Trial: The CARET Experience with Heavy Smokers I , 2008 .

[7]  M. Dignan,et al.  Factors influencing the return rate in a direct mail campaign to inform minority women about prevention of cervical cancer. , 1994, Public health reports.

[8]  C. Ulrich,et al.  Mailing strategies and recruitment into an intervention trial of the exercise effect on breast cancer biomarkers. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[9]  J. Gohagan,et al.  Enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. , 2008, Journal of the National Medical Association.

[10]  N. Anthonisen,et al.  Recruiting healthy participants for a large clinical trial. , 1993, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  E. Fisher,et al.  The Diabetes Prevention Program: recruitment methods and results. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[12]  L. Larkey,et al.  Latino recruitment to cancer prevention/screening trials in the Southwest: setting a research agenda. , 2008, Applied nursing research : ANR.

[13]  A. Buist,et al.  Monitoring recruitment effectiveness and cost in a clinical trial. , 1993, Controlled clinical trials.

[14]  H. Taylor,et al.  Community-based recruitment strategies for a longitudinal interventional study: the VECAT experience. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  S. Havstad,et al.  A randomized trial of recruitment methods for older African American men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial , 2004, Clinical trials.

[16]  G. Omenn,et al.  Strategies for recruitment to a population-based lung cancer prevention trial: the CARET experience with heavy smokers. Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial. , 1998, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[17]  A. King,et al.  Using direct mail to recruit hispanic adults into a dietary intervention: An experimental study , 2000, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[18]  A. Glass,et al.  Mailing strategies and costs of recruiting heavy smokers in CARET, a large chemoprevention trial. , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.