↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Participant retention practices in longitudinal clinical research studies with high retention rates
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0310-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martha Abshire, Victor D. Dinglas, Maan Isabella A. Cajita, Michelle N. Eakin, Dale M. Needham, Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 57 28%
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 26 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 17%
Psychology 33 16%
Social Sciences 27 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 10%
Neuroscience 11 5%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 41 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 28 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,066,496
of 18,003,555 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#151
of 1,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,430
of 269,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,003,555 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 269,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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