B116 - Enhancing Recruitment of BIPOC Patients who Smoke into a Smoking Cessation Clinical Trial: A Comparison of Clinic and Telephone Recruitment.
Time: 11:00 AM - 11:50 AMTopics: Tobacco Control and Nicotine-Related Behavior, Health of Marginalized Populations
Poster Number: B116
Background: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) populations in the United States experience health inequities in smoking related chronic diseases. The Smoking Cessation Outreach for Racial Equity (SCORE) study investigates a smoking cessation intervention among BIPOC communities. This sub-study examines methods to optimize recruitment of BIPOC patients who smoke by comparing clinical vs. telephone recruitment.
Methods: Recruitment for the study included identifying potentially eligible English or Spanish-speaking BIPOC adult primary care patients who smoke via chart review, approaching eligible patients to offer the study, completing an eligibility screen, and obtaining informed consent. Study recruitment occurred either by phone or in person during primary care visits. For phone recruitment, potential participants (n=380) were mailed a study invitation letter and study staff followed up with 3 call attempts to offer enrollment. For clinic recruitment (n=416) clinical staff approached eligible patients and notified study staff to screen and consent interested and eligible patients. Sub-study outcomes were the proportion of patients who agreed to screening and consented to the main study.
Results: For phone recruitment, 22.9% (87/380) of patients agreed to screening and of those 11.6% (44/380) consented and 10.8% (41/380) were randomized. For in-clinic recruited participants, 30.5% (127/416) agreed to screening and of those 16.1% (67/416) consented and 14.9% (62/416) were randomized. Patients approached in-clinic were significantly more willing to agree to screening (p=<0.001). No significant differences in consent rates by modality were found.
Discussion: Although no significant difference in consent rates was found, trends suggested patients were more likely to agree to screening in clinic. This aligns with other research, as patients may trust the familiar healthcare system or follow provider recommendations. However, clinic recruitment required more staff time and costs, making the cost-benefit comparison of these methods unclear. Further studies are needed to optimize recruitment of diverse populations.
Keywords: Research methods, Minority healthMethods: Recruitment for the study included identifying potentially eligible English or Spanish-speaking BIPOC adult primary care patients who smoke via chart review, approaching eligible patients to offer the study, completing an eligibility screen, and obtaining informed consent. Study recruitment occurred either by phone or in person during primary care visits. For phone recruitment, potential participants (n=380) were mailed a study invitation letter and study staff followed up with 3 call attempts to offer enrollment. For clinic recruitment (n=416) clinical staff approached eligible patients and notified study staff to screen and consent interested and eligible patients. Sub-study outcomes were the proportion of patients who agreed to screening and consented to the main study.
Results: For phone recruitment, 22.9% (87/380) of patients agreed to screening and of those 11.6% (44/380) consented and 10.8% (41/380) were randomized. For in-clinic recruited participants, 30.5% (127/416) agreed to screening and of those 16.1% (67/416) consented and 14.9% (62/416) were randomized. Patients approached in-clinic were significantly more willing to agree to screening (p=<0.001). No significant differences in consent rates by modality were found.
Discussion: Although no significant difference in consent rates was found, trends suggested patients were more likely to agree to screening in clinic. This aligns with other research, as patients may trust the familiar healthcare system or follow provider recommendations. However, clinic recruitment required more staff time and costs, making the cost-benefit comparison of these methods unclear. Further studies are needed to optimize recruitment of diverse populations.
Authors and Affliiates
Presenter: Odalys Lozado, BA, Hennepin Healthcare Research InstituteCo-Author: Steven Fu, MD, MSc, University of Minnesota
Co-Author: Lynn Andreae, Ph.D., Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute
Co-Author: Nathalia Yalile Gutiérrez Sacasa, BA, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute
Co-Author: Oscar Oranday Perez, IMG, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute
Co-Author: Pearl Fang, BS, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute
Co-Author: Devyn Fernholz, BA, Hennepin Healthcare
Co-Author: Patrick Hammett, PhD, PhD, University of Minnesota
Co-Author: David Nelson, Ph.D., University of Minnesota
Co-Author: Andrew M. Busch, PhD, PhD, University of Minnesota/HCMC
Co-Author: Christi A. Patten, PhD, PhD, Mayo Clinic
Co-Author: Sandra Japuntich, Ph.D., Ph.D., Hennepin Healthcare/University of Minnesota Medical School
B116 - Enhancing Recruitment of BIPOC Patients who Smoke into a Smoking Cessation Clinical Trial: A Comparison of Clinic and Telephone Recruitment.
Category
Scientific > Poster/Paper/Live Research Spotlight