Participant engagement and involvement in longitudinal cohort studies: qualitative insights from a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02419-8
Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Nanna A G Fredheim, Charlotte Alison Jevne, Bojana Milanovic Kleven, Marie Aline Charles, Janine F Felix, Robin Flaig, María Paz García, Alexandra Havdahl, Shahid Islam, Shona M Kerr, Inger Kristine Meder, Lynn Molloy, Susan M B Morton, Costanza Pizzi, Aamnah Rahman, Gonneke Willemsen, Diane Wood, Jennifer R Harris
{"title":"Participant engagement and involvement in longitudinal cohort studies: qualitative insights from a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.","authors":"Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Nanna A G Fredheim, Charlotte Alison Jevne, Bojana Milanovic Kleven, Marie Aline Charles, Janine F Felix, Robin Flaig, María Paz García, Alexandra Havdahl, Shahid Islam, Shona M Kerr, Inger Kristine Meder, Lynn Molloy, Susan M B Morton, Costanza Pizzi, Aamnah Rahman, Gonneke Willemsen, Diane Wood, Jennifer R Harris","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02419-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Longitudinal cohort studies are pivotal to understand how socioeconomic, environmental, biological, and lifestyle factors influence health and disease. The added value of cohort studies increases as they accumulate life course data and expand across generations. Ensuring that participants stay motivated to contribute over decades of follow-up is, however, challenging. Participant engagement and involvement (PEI) aims to secure the long-term commitment of participants and promote researcher-participant interaction. This study explored PEI practices in a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Purposive sampling was used to identify cohorts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Fourteen semi-structured digital interviews were conducted with cohort study representatives to explore strategies for participant recruitment, informed consent, communication of general and individual information to participants, data collection, and participant involvement. Experiences, resources allocated to PEI, and reflections on future PEI, were discussed. The interview data were analyzed using a content analysis approach and summary results were reviewed and discussed by the representatives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort studies used various strategies to recruit participants including support from health professionals and organizations combined with information on the studies' web sites and social media. New approaches such as intra-cohort recruitment, were being investigated. Most cohorts transitioned from paper-based to digital solutions to collect the participants' consent and data. While digital solutions increased efficiency, they also brought new challenges. The studies experimented with the use of participant advisory panels and focus groups to involve participants in making decisions, although their success varied across age and socio-economic background. Most representatives reported PEI resources to be limited and called for more human, technical, educational and financial resources to maximize the positive effects of PEI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study of PEI among well-established cohort studies underscores the importance of PEI for project sustainability and highlights key factors to consider in developing PEI. Our analysis shows that knowledge gaps exist regarding which approaches have highest impact on retention rates and are best suited for different participant groups. Research is needed to support the development of best practices for PEI as well as knowledge exchange between cohorts through network building.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"297"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11613753/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02419-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Longitudinal cohort studies are pivotal to understand how socioeconomic, environmental, biological, and lifestyle factors influence health and disease. The added value of cohort studies increases as they accumulate life course data and expand across generations. Ensuring that participants stay motivated to contribute over decades of follow-up is, however, challenging. Participant engagement and involvement (PEI) aims to secure the long-term commitment of participants and promote researcher-participant interaction. This study explored PEI practices in a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.

Methods: Purposive sampling was used to identify cohorts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Fourteen semi-structured digital interviews were conducted with cohort study representatives to explore strategies for participant recruitment, informed consent, communication of general and individual information to participants, data collection, and participant involvement. Experiences, resources allocated to PEI, and reflections on future PEI, were discussed. The interview data were analyzed using a content analysis approach and summary results were reviewed and discussed by the representatives.

Results: The cohort studies used various strategies to recruit participants including support from health professionals and organizations combined with information on the studies' web sites and social media. New approaches such as intra-cohort recruitment, were being investigated. Most cohorts transitioned from paper-based to digital solutions to collect the participants' consent and data. While digital solutions increased efficiency, they also brought new challenges. The studies experimented with the use of participant advisory panels and focus groups to involve participants in making decisions, although their success varied across age and socio-economic background. Most representatives reported PEI resources to be limited and called for more human, technical, educational and financial resources to maximize the positive effects of PEI.

Conclusions: This study of PEI among well-established cohort studies underscores the importance of PEI for project sustainability and highlights key factors to consider in developing PEI. Our analysis shows that knowledge gaps exist regarding which approaches have highest impact on retention rates and are best suited for different participant groups. Research is needed to support the development of best practices for PEI as well as knowledge exchange between cohorts through network building.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与者参与和参与纵向队列研究:从妊娠和分娩、双胞胎和基于家庭的人口队列研究中获得的定性见解。
背景:纵向队列研究是了解社会经济、环境、生物和生活方式因素如何影响健康和疾病的关键。队列研究的附加价值随着它们积累生命历程数据和跨代扩展而增加。然而,确保参与者在几十年的后续行动中保持积极性是一项挑战。参与者参与和参与(PEI)旨在确保参与者的长期承诺,促进研究人员与参与者的互动。本研究探讨了PEI在妊娠和分娩、双胞胎和基于家庭的人群队列研究中的实践。方法:目的抽样在欧洲、澳大利亚和新西兰确定队列。与队列研究代表进行了14次半结构化的数字访谈,以探索参与者招募、知情同意、向参与者传达一般和个人信息、数据收集和参与者参与的策略。讨论了PEI的经验、资源分配以及对未来PEI的思考。访谈数据采用内容分析法进行分析,并由代表对总结结果进行审查和讨论。结果:队列研究采用了各种策略来招募参与者,包括来自卫生专业人员和组织的支持,以及研究网站和社交媒体上的信息。正在研究新的办法,例如队列内征聘。大多数队列从基于纸张的解决方案过渡到数字解决方案,以收集参与者的同意和数据。虽然数字解决方案提高了效率,但也带来了新的挑战。这些研究尝试使用参与者咨询小组和焦点小组来让参与者参与决策,尽管他们的成功因年龄和社会经济背景而异。大多数代表报告说,PEI的资源是有限的,并呼吁更多的人力、技术、教育和财政资源,以最大限度地发挥PEI的积极作用。结论:本研究在成熟的队列研究中强调了PEI对项目可持续性的重要性,并强调了发展PEI需要考虑的关键因素。我们的分析表明,关于哪种方法对保留率影响最大,最适合不同的参与者群体,存在知识差距。需要进行研究,以支持制定PEI的最佳做法,并通过网络建设促进群组之间的知识交流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
A generative model for evaluating missing data methods in large epidemiological cohorts. Discrepancies in safety reporting for chronic back pain clinical trials: an observational study from ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Multiple states clustering analysis (MSCA), an unsupervised approach to multiple time-to-event electronic health records applied to multimorbidity associated with myocardial infarction. Matching plus regression adjustment for the estimation of the average treatment effect on survival outcomes: a case study with mosunetuzumab in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma. Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1