Cited by 60Diabetes Management and EducationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Recruitment for an internet-based diabetes self-management program: scientific and ethical implications

Glasgow, Russell E., Strycker, Lisa A., Kurz, Deanna, Faber, Andrew, Bell, Hillary, Dickman, Jennifer M., Halterman, Eve, Estabrooks, Paul A. +1 more·2010·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the reach of Internet self-management interventions. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate different definitions of participation rate and compare characteristics among subcategories of participants and nonparticipants on demographic and clinical factors using de-identified electronic medical record data. METHODS: Data are presented on recruitment results and characteristics of 2,603 health maintenance organization members having type 2 diabetes invited to participate in an Internet self-management program. RESULTS: There was a 37% participation rate among all members attempted to contact and presumed eligible. There were several significant differences between participants and nonparticipants and among subgroups of participants (e.g., proactive volunteers vs. telephone respondents) on factors including age, income, ethnicity, smoking rate, education, blood pressure, and hemoglobin A1c. CONCLUSION: These results have important implications for the impact of different recruitment methods on health disparities and generalization of results. We provide recommendations for reporting of eligibility rate, participation rate, and representativeness analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-010-9189-1

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glasgow, R. E., Strycker, L. A., Kurz, D., Faber, A., Bell, H., Dickman, J. M., Halterman, E., Estabrooks, P. A., & Osuna, D.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Oregon Research Institute (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Glasgow, Russell E.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2010-04-22
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
40-48
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2091367191
Cited by
60
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK035524, R37DK035524)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
recruitment (clinical trials), online intervention, diabetes self-management, type 2 diabetes, participation rates, health disparities, representativeness, research ethics, health maintenance organizations, electronic health records, generalizability
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Patient Selection, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review