Cited by 222Ethics in Clinical ResearchSurvey Methodology and NonresponseStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants

Open access
Robinson, Karen A., Dennison, Cheryl R., Wayman, Dawn M., Pronovost, Peter J., Needham, Dale M.·2007·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective Loss to follow-up threatens internal and external validity yet little research has examined ways to limit participant attrition. We conducted a systematic review of studies with a primary focus on strategies to retain participants in health care research. Study design and settings We completed searches of PubMed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane Methodology Register, and EMBASE (August 2005). We also examined reference lists of eligible articles and relevant reviews. A data-driven thematic analysis of the retention strategies identified common themes. Results We retrieved 3,068 citations, 21 studies were eligible for inclusion. We abstracted 368 strategies and from these identified 12 themes. The studies reported a median of 17 strategies across a median of six themes. The most commonly reported strategies were systematic methods of participant contact and scheduling. Studies with retention rates lower than the mean rate (86%) reported fewer strategies. There was no difference in the number of different themes used. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that investigators should consider using a number of retention strategies across several themes to maximize the retention of participants. Further research, including explicit evaluation of the effectiveness of different strategies, is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.023

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, K. A., Dennison, C. R., Wayman, D. M., Pronovost, P. J., & Needham, D. M.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Karen A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-08
Volume
60
Issue
8
Pages
757.e1-757.e19
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159625444
Cited by
222
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p50hl073994-05)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (P50 HL-073994, P050 HL 73994-01)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (K23NR009193)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
participant retention, loss to follow-up, participant attrition, retention strategies, health care research, appointment scheduling, research participant engagement
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Dropouts, Research Design, Cohort Studies, Patient Selection

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