Abstract
Background/Aims: Technological advances in health communications can potentially help or create barriers for individuals to manage chronic disease care. However, we know little about preferences for receiving cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention information among individuals with multiple risk factors for CVD and varying health literacy levels. The overall design of the study is a mixed-methods design assessing health literacy levels and preferences for receiving CVD prevention information using surveys and in-depth interviews with patients who have two or more risk factors for CVD. However, this presentation will focus on the recruitment process for the study.
Methods: Participants were recruited from two health care organizations (an HMO organization and a community health clinic) in Denver, CO in order to obtain a more diverse study sample as well as capture a wider range of health literacy levels and experiences with receiving health information. Using two health care systems required receiving human subjects’ approval from two institutional review boards (IRB). The original recruitment methods, which consisted of identifying potentially eligible individuals through each organization’s electronic medical records system, sending out an introductory recruitment letter with an opt-out postcard followed up with a recruitment call, were approved by one IRB and not the other.
Results: After reassessing the allowable recruitment methods from the community health clinic’s IRB, it was decided that the overall recruitment methods for the project would be selected to suit each organization’s patient populations. In the HMO setting, the originally proposed methods were used. In the community health care setting, two different methods were used. First, 5 physicians identified patients that were potentially eligible for the study and an ‘opt-in’ introductory letter was mailed out from each of the physicians. Second, in-clinic recruitment was conducted to reach the final recruitment goal. Experiences with using two different recruitment methods for participants and outcomes associated with using these methods will be reported.
Conclusions: The results of these recruitment efforts are important for researchers in that one must consider and plan for potential changes required from IRBs and the implications of such changes on projects when partnering and conducting research with multiple institutions.
- Received September 11, 2008.
