Cited by 274Ethics in Clinical ResearchSurvey Methodology and NonresponseStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Participant retention practices in longitudinal clinical research studies with high retention rates

Open access
Abshire, Martha, Dinglas, Victor D., Cajita, Maan Isabella A., Eakin, Michelle N., Needham, Dale M., Himmelfarb, Cheryl Dennison·2017·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a need for improving cohort retention in longitudinal studies. Our objective was to identify cohort retention strategies and implementation approaches used in studies with high retention rates. METHODS: Longitudinal studies with ≥200 participants, ≥80% retention rates over ≥1 year of follow-up were queried from an Institutional Review Board database at a large research-intensive U.S. university; additional studies were identified through networking. Nineteen (86%) of 22 eligible studies agreed to participate. Through in-depth semi-structured interviews, participants provided retention strategies based on themes identified from previous literature reviews. Synthesis of data was completed by a multidisciplinary team. RESULTS: The most commonly used retention strategies were: study reminders, study visit characteristics, emphasizing study benefits, and contact/scheduling strategies. The research teams were well-functioning, organized, and persistent. Additionally, teams tailored their strategies to their participants, often adapting and innovating their approaches. CONCLUSIONS: These studies included specialized and persistent teams and utilized tailored strategies specific to their cohort and individual participants. Studies' written protocols and published manuscripts often did not reflect the varied strategies employed and adapted through the duration of study. Appropriate retention strategy use requires cultural sensitivity and more research is needed to identify how strategy use varies globally.

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/s12874-017-0310-z

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • High retention rates (75% from IND entered OP/MAINT) and attainment of adequate exposure requirements add to the comprehensiveness of the data.

    “Furthermore, the high retention rates (75% of patients from the IND phase entered the OP/MAINT phase) and attainment of adequate exposure requirements (as outlined in the International Council for Harmonisation [ICH] E1 guideline) 40 adds to the comprehensiveness of the data collected during this longitudinal study.41,42”

    From Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression (2020) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Background (page unavailable) says participant retention is vital to the power and internal validity of longitudinal research, supporting the general point that retention strengthens the data. The Results (page unavailable) concern studies with at least 80% retention; this paper does not establish the citing study’s 75% transition from IND to OP/MAINT or its exposure requirements. The ICH guideline is cited separately as reference 40. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abshire, M., Dinglas, V. D., Cajita, M. I. A., Eakin, M. N., Needham, D. M., & Himmelfarb, C. D.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2017-02-20
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
30-30
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2590679164
Cited by
274
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4
FWCI
22.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (cc-by)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R24HL111895)
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, cohort retention, retention strategies, cultural sensitivity
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Collection, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Patient Dropouts, Research Design

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