Challenges to improving the impact of worksite cancer prevention programs: Comparing reach, enrollment, and attrition using active versus passive recruitment strategies
- 181 Downloads
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- (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
- (9).Chapman LS: Maximizing program participation.The Art of Health Promotion. 1998,2(2): 1–8.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
- (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
- (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.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.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.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