↓ Skip to main content

Recruitment of racial/ethnic minority older adults through community sites for focus group discussions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Recruitment of racial/ethnic minority older adults through community sites for focus group discussions
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4482-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary E. Northridge, Michele Shedlin, Eric W. Schrimshaw, Ivette Estrada, Leydis De La Cruz, Rogelina Peralta, Stacia Birdsall, Sara S. Metcalf, Bibhas Chakraborty, Carol Kunzel

Abstract

Despite a body of evidence on racial/ethnic minority enrollment and retention in research, literature specifically focused on recruiting racially/ethnically diverse older adults for social science studies is limited. There is a need for more rigorous research on methodological issues and the efficacy of recruitment methods. Cultural obstacles to recruitment of racial/ethnic minority older adults include language barriers, lack of cultural sensitivity of target communities on the part of researchers, and culturally inappropriate assessment tools. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study critically appraised the recruitment of racial/ethnic minority older adults for focus groups. The initial approach involved using the physical and social infrastructure of the ElderSmile network, a community-based initiative to promote oral and general health and conduct health screenings in places where older adults gather, to recruit racial/ethnic minority adults for a social science component of an interdisciplinary initiative. The process involved planning a recruitment strategy, engaging the individuals involved in its implementation (opinion leaders in senior centers, program staff as implementation leaders, senior community-based colleagues as champions, and motivated center directors as change agents), executing the recruitment plan, and reflecting on the process of implementation. While the recruitment phase of the study was delayed by 6 months to allow for ongoing recruitment and filling of focus group slots, the flexibility of the recruitment plan, the expertise of the research team members, the perseverance of the recruitment staff, and the cultivation of change agents ultimately resulted in meeting the study targets for enrollment in terms of both numbers of focus group discussions (n = 24) and numbers of participants (n = 194). This study adds to the literature in two important ways. First, we leveraged the social and physical infrastructure of an existing program to recruit participants through community sites where older adults gather. Second, we used the CFIR to guide the appraisal of the recruitment process, which underscored important considerations for both reaching and engaging this underserved population. This was especially true in terms of understanding the disparate roles of the individuals involved in implementing and facilitating the recruitment plan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 9 10%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Social Sciences 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,554,389
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,937
of 14,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,796
of 317,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#232
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.