Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 543

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting

Open access
Valerio, Melissa A., Rodriguez, Natalia, Winkler, Paula, Lopez, Jaime, Dennison, Meagen, Liang, Yuanyuan, Turner, Barbara J.·2016·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. METHODS: In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities' stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community. RESULTS: Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05). Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the snowball sampling group. CONCLUSIONS: In each of the two similar hard-to-reach communities, a community advisory board partnered with researchers to implement a different sampling method to recruit stakeholders. The snowball sampling method achieved greater participation with more Hispanics but also more individuals with disabilities than a purposive-convenience sampling method. However, priorities for research on chronic pain from both stakeholder groups were similar. Although utilizing a snowball sampling method appears to be superior, further research is needed on implementation costs and resources.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, Krist AH. Authentic engagement of patients and communities can transform research, practice, and policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(4):590–4. · DOI
  2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2001.
  3. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–4. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Minkler M. Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010;100 Suppl 1:S81–7. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kwon S, Rideout C, Tseng W, et al. Developing the community empowered research training program: building research capacity for community-initiated and community-driven research. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012;6(1):43–52. · DOI
  6. Fowler F. Applied social research methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2014.
  7. Heckathorn DD. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociol Methodol. 2007;37(1):151–207. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Semaan S, Heckathorn DD, Des Jarlais DC, Garfein RS. Ethical considerations in surveys employing respondent-driven sampling. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(4):582–3. · DOI
  9. Ryan KJ, Brady J, Cooke R, Height D, Jonsen A, King P, et al. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1979.
  10. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathron D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV Surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19:S67–72. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Staniford LJ, Breckon JD, Copeland RJ, Hutchison A. Key stakeholders' perspectives towards childhood obesity treatment: a qualitative study. J Child Health Care. 2011;15(3):230–44. · DOI
  12. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven A, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Minneapolis: Scott Foresman Company; 1975.
  13. Gallagher M, Hares T, Spencer J, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam Pract. 1993;10(1):76–81. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Institute of Medicine. Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education and research. Washington: National Academies Press; 2011.
  15. Turner BJ, Burg FD. A consumer/medical educator conference: new objectives for the medical curriculum. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(5):323–7. · DOI
  16. Luborsky MR, Rubinstein RL. Sampling in qualitative research rationale, issues and methods. Res Aging. 1995;17(1):89–113. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Whitmarsh L, Swartling ÅG, Jäger J. Participation of experts and non-experts in a sustainability assessment of mobility. Environ Policy Gov. 2009;19(4):232–50. · DOI
  18. Zanini C, Sarzi-Puttini P, Atzeni F, Di Franco M, Rubinelli S. Building bridges between doctors and patients: the design and pilot evaluation of a training session in argumentation for chronic pain experts. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:89. · DOI
  19. Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann. 2012;35(2):236–45. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Sadler GR, Lee HC, Lim RS, Fullerton J. Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nurs Health Sci. 2010;12(3):369–74. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kendall C, Kerr LR, Gondim RC, et al. An empirical comparison of respondent-driven sampling, time location sampling, and snowball sampling for behavioral surveillance in men who have sex with men, Fortaleza, Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(4 Suppl):S97–104. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Carballo-Diéguez A, Balan I, Marone R, et al. Use of respondent driven sampling (RDS) generates a very diverse sample of men who have sex with men (MSM) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27447. · DOI
  23. Pascoe SW, Veitch C, Crossland LJ, et al. Patients' experiences of referral for colorectal cancer. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:124. · DOI
  24. Witkin BR, Altschuld JW. Planning and conducting needs assessments: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 1995. p. 167–71.
  25. Ulin PR, Robinson PE, Tolley EE. Qualitative methods in public health: a field guide for applied research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
  26. Coye MJ, Aubry WM, Yu W, Health Technology Center. The “tipping point” and health care innovations: Advancing the adoption of beneficial technologies. Washington: National Committee for Quality Health Care; 2003.
  27. Petruney T, Harlan SV, Lanham M, Robinson ET. Increasing support for contraception as HIV prevention: stakeholder mapping to identify influential individuals and their perceptions. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10781. · DOI
  28. Johnston LG, Sabin K. Sampling hard-to-reach populations with respondent driven sampling. Methodol Innov. 2010;5(2):38–48.
  29. MacFarlane A, O'Donnell C, Mair F, et al. REsearch into implementation STrategies to support patients of different ORigins and language background in a variety of European primary care settings (RESTORE): study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7:111. · DOI
  30. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186. · DOI
  31. Firth H, Todd A, Bambra C. Benefits and barriers to the public health pharmacy: A qualitative exploration of providers' and commissioners' perceptions of the Healthy Living Pharmacy framework. Perspect Public Health. 2015;135(5):251–6. · DOI
  32. Carter-Edwards L, Lowe-Wilson A, Mouw MS, et al. Community member and stakeholder perspectives on a healthy environment initiative in North Carolina. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E127. · DOI
  33. Gibbs L, Waters E, de Silva A, et al. An exploratory trial implementing a community-based child oral health promotion intervention for Australian families from refugee and migrant backgrounds: a protocol paper for Teeth Tales. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004260. · DOI
  34. Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):77–100. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(1):416–30. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Barendregt C, van der Poel A, van de Mheen D. Tracing selection effects in three non-probability samples. Eur Addict Res. 2005;11(3):124–31. · DOI
  37. Neille J, Penn C. Beyond physical access: a qualitative analysis into the barriers to policy implementation and service provision experienced by persons with disabilities living in a rural context. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15(3):3332. · DOI
  38. Hadland SE, DeBeck K, Kerr T, Feng C, Montaner JS, Wood E. Prescription opioid injection and risk of hepatitis C in relation to traditional drugs of misuse in a prospective cohort of street youth. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e005419. · DOI
  39. Cooke M, Emery H, Brimelow R, Wollin J. The impact of therapeutic massage on adult residents living with complex and high level disabilities: a brief report. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(4):730–4. · DOI
  40. Simmonds MJ, Finley EP, Vale S, Pugh MJ, Turner BJ. A qualitative study of veterans on long-term opioid analgesics: barriers and facilitators to multimodality pain management. Pain Med. 2015;16(4):726–32. · DOI
  41. McCrorie C, Closs SJ, House A, et al. Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:121. · DOI
  42. Patton MQ. Qualitative research methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2002.
  43. Parsons JA. Mamdani M, Bhattacharyya O, Fortin CM, Melo M, Salmon C, et al. Narcotic analgesic utilization amongst injured workers: using concept mapping to understand current issues from perspectives of physicians and pharmacists. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:280. · DOI
  44. Auerswald CL, Greene K, Minnis A, Doherty I, Ellen J, Padian N. Qualitative assessment of venues for purposive sampling of hard-to-reach youth. Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31(2):133–8. · DOI

Cited by

See all 543

Metadata

Authors
Valerio, M. A., Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J., Dennison, M., Liang, Y., & Turner, B. J.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-10-28
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
146-146
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z
OpenAlex
W2541735118
Cited by
543
References
5
FWCI
45.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Funders
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (ME-13035729)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.