Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges to improving the impact of worksite cancer prevention programs: Comparing reach, enrollment, and attrition using active versus passive recruitment strategies

  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Objective: The impact of worksite intervention studies is maximized when reach and enrollment are high and attrition is low. Differences in reach, enrollment, and retention were investigated by comparing 2 different employee recruitment methods for a home-based cancer-prevention intervention study. Methods: Twenty-two worksites (N = 10,014 employees) chose either active or passive methods to recruit employees into a home-based intervention study. Reach (e.g., number of employees who gave permission to be called at home), Enrollment (e.g., number of employees who joined the home intervention study), and Attrition (e.g., number who did not complete the 12- and 24-month follow-ups) were determined. Analysis at the cluster level assessed differences between worksites that selected active (n =12) versus passive (n = 10) recruitment methods on key outcomes of interest. Employees recruited by passive methods had significantly higher reach (74.5% vs. 24.4% for active) but significantly lower enrollment (41% vs. 78%) and retention (54% vs. 70%) rates (all ps = .0001). Passive methods also successfully enrolled a more diverse, high-risk employee sample. Passive (vs. active) recruitment methods hold advantages for increased reach and the ability to retain a more representative employee sample. Implications of these results for the design of future worksite studies that involve multilevel recruitment methods are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework.American Journal of Public Health. 1999,89:1322–1327.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt MK, Johnston D: Implications of the results of community intervention trials.Annual Review of Public Health. 1998,19:379–416.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson M, Holman PB, Hammock A: A comprehensive review of the effects of worksite health promotion on health-related outcomes.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1996,10:429–435.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jeffrey RW, Forster JL, French SA, et al.: The Healthy Worker project: A worksite intervention for weight control and smoking cessation.American Journal of Public Health. 1993,83:395–401.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Glasgow RE, Terborg JR, Hollis JF, Severson HH, Boles SM: Take Heart: Results of the initial phase of a worksite wellness program.American Journal of Public Health. 1995,85:209–216.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sorensen G, Thompson B, Glanz K, et al.: Worksite based cancer prevention: Primary results from the Working Well trial.American Journal of Public Health. 1996,86:939–947.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Glasgow RE, McKaul KD, Fisher KJ: Participation in worksite health promotion: A critique of the literature and recommendations for future practice.Health Education Quarterly. 1993,20:391–408.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Resnicow K, Davis M, Smith M, et al.: Results of the Teachwell worksite wellness program.American Journal of Public Health. 1998,88:250–257.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chapman LS: Maximizing program participation.The Art of Health Promotion. 1998,2(2): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Crump CE, Earp JL, Kozma CM, Hertz-Picciotto I: Effect of or ganization-level variables on differential employee participation in 10 federal worksite health promotion programs.Health Education Quarterly. 1996,23:204–223.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Grosch JW, Alterman T, Peterson MR, Murphy LR: Worksite health promotion programs in the US: Factors associated with availability and participation.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1998,13:36–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Capaldi DM, Chamberlain P, Fetrow RA, Wilson JE: Conducting ecologically valid prevention research: Recruiting and retaining a “whole village” in multimethod, multiagent studies.American Journal of Community Psychology. 1997,25:471–492.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bjornson-Benson WM, Stibolt TB, Manske KA, et al.: Monitoring recruitment effectiveness and cost in a clinical trial.Controlled Clinical Trials. 1993,14:52S-67S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Altman D: Sustaining interventions in community systems: On the relationship between researchers and communities.Health Psychology. 1995,14:526–536.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Conrad K: Threats to internal validity in worksite health promotion research: Common problems and possible solutions.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1991,6:74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abrams DB, Boutwell W, Grizzle J, et al.: Cancer control at the workplace: the Working Well Trial.Preventive Medicine. 1994,23:15–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE: The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In Glanz K, Rimer B, Lewis F (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, 60–84.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson B, VanLeynseele J, Beresford S: Recruiting worksites to participate in a health promotion research study.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1997,11:344–351.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Biener L, DePue J, Emmons K, Linnan L, Abrams D: Recruitment of worksites to a health promotion research trial.Journal of Occupational Medicine. 1994,36:631–636.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Emmons KM, Thompson B, Sorensen G, et al.: The relationen organizational characteristics and the adoption of workplace smoking policies.Health Education and Behavior.27:483-501.

  21. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1983,51:390–395.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Greene G, Rossi S: Stages of change for dietary fat reduction over 18 months.Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1998,98:529–534.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Greene GW, Rossi SR, Rossi JR, et al.: Dietary applications of the Stages of Change Model.Journal of the American Dietetic Association.99:673–678.

  24. Rossi JS, Blais LM, Redding CA, Weinstock MA: Behavior change for reducing sun and ultraviolet light exposure: Implications for interventions.Dermatologic Clinics. 1995,13:613–622.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Marcus BM, Rossi JS, Selby V: The stages and processes of exercise adoption and maintenance in a worksite sample.Health Psychology. 1992,11:386–395.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Donner A, Klar N: Methods for comparing event rates in intervention studies when the unit of allocation is a cluster.American Journal of Epidemiology. 1994,140:279–289.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Prochaska JO: A stage paradigm for integrating clinical and public health approaches to smoking cessation.Addictive Behaviors. 1996,21:721–732.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Linnan LA, Abrams DB, Papandonatos GD, Emmons KE: Every Person Counts : Results of a randomized trial designed to increase employee participation in a comprehensive worksite health promotion program. Manuscript under review.

  29. Thompson B, Bowen DJ, Croyle RT, Hopp HP, Fries E: Maxi mizing worksite survey response rates through community organization strategies and multiple contacts.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1991,6:130–136.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarkin JA, Marshall SJ, Larson KA, Calfas KJ, Sallis JF: A comparison of methods of recruitment to a health promotion program for university seniors.Preventive Medicine. 1998,27:562–571.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee RE, McGinnis KA, Sallis JF, Castro CM, Chen AH: Active vs. passive methods of recruiting ethnic minority women to a health promotion program.Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 1997,19:378–384.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Baker EA, Israel BA, Schurman SJ: A participatory approach to worksite health promotion.Journal of Ambulatory Care Management. 1994,17(2):68–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Heaney CA, Israel BA, Schurman SJ, et al.: Industrial relations, worksite stress reduction and employee well-being: A participatory action research investigation.Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1993,14:495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fisher E: Editorial: The results of the COMMIT trial.AmericanJournal of Public Health. 1995,85:159–160.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Abrams DB, Emmons KE, Linnan LA: Health behavior and health education: The past, present, and future. In Glanz K, Rimer B, Lewis F (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, 453–478.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schensul JJ: Organizing community research partnerships in the struggle against AIDS.Health Education and Behavior. 1999,26:266–283.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, Brown University Medical School and The Miriam Hospital, a Lifespan Partner, USA

    Laura A. Linnan Sc.D., C.H.E.S.

  2. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Public Health, 310A Rosenau Hall, CB# 7440, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC

    Laura A. Linnan Sc.D., C.H.E.S.

  3. Harvard School of Public Health and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, University of Rhode Island, USA

    Karen M. Emmons Ph.D. & Neil Klar Ph.D.

  4. University of Rhode Island, USA

    Joseph L. Fava Ph.D. & Robert G. LaForge Sc.D.

  5. Center for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, Brown University Medical School and The Miriam Hospital, a Lifespan partner, USA

    David B. Abrams Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Laura A. Linnan Sc.D., C.H.E.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen M. Emmons Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Klar Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph L. Fava Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert G. LaForge Sc.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David B. Abrams Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura A. Linnan Sc.D., C.H.E.S..

Additional information

Support for this work was provided by National Cancer Institute Grant P01 CA50087. Laura A. Linnan is now at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Public Health.

We gratefully acknowledge thoughtful reviews provided by Glorian Sorensen and Graham Colditz on early drafts of this article. Special thanks to Michael Guertin for data preparation; to Mary Lynne Hixson, Suzanne Moriarty, and Sheila Jacobs for recruitment efforts; and to the 22 participating worksites in this study.

About this article

Cite this article

Linnan, L.A., Emmons, K.M., Klar, N. et al. Challenges to improving the impact of worksite cancer prevention programs: Comparing reach, enrollment, and attrition using active versus passive recruitment strategies. ann. behav. med. 24, 157–166 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2402_13

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2402_13

Keywords

Search

Navigation