↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for retaining study participants in behavioral intervention trials: Retention experiences of the nih behavior change consortium

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Behavioral Medicine, April 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Strategies for retaining study participants in behavioral intervention trials: Retention experiences of the nih behavior change consortium
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, April 2005
DOI 10.1207/s15324796abm2902s_9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mace Coday, Carla Boutin-Foster, Tamara Goldman Sher, Jennifer Tennant, Mary L. Greaney, Sandra D. Saunders, Grant W. Somes

Abstract

Failing to retain an adequate number of study participants in behavioral intervention trials poses a threat to interpretation of study results and its external validity. This qualitative investigation describes the retention strategies promoted by the recruitment and retention committee of the Behavior Change Consortium, a group of 15 university-based sites funded by the National Institutes of Health to implement studies targeted toward disease prevention through behavior change. During biannual meetings, focus groups were conducted with all sites to determine barriers encountered in retaining study participants and strategies employed to address these barriers. All of the retention strategies reported were combined into 8 thematic retention categories. Those categories perceived to be most effective for retaining study participants were summarized and consistencies noted among site populations across the life course (e.g., older adults, adults, children, and adolescents). Further, possible discrepancies between site populations of varying health statuses are discussed, and an ecological framework is proposed for use in future investigations on retention.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2009.
All research outputs
#4,696,232
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#462
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,563
of 59,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them