Proactive versus reactive recruitment to a physical activity intervention for breast cancer survivors: Does it matter?

Abstract

Background

There is a gap in the current breast cancer survivorship literature identifying potential sample biases that may result from recruiting participants via different methods.

Purpose

To document whether participant recruitment method influences baseline demographic or psychosocial variables and trial participation among breast cancer survivors recruited for a physical activity intervention trial.

Methods

Participants were recruited for the trial via either a reactive method (letters mailed through their oncologist’s office inviting them to contact the research staff) or a proactive method (referred in person by their oncologist at a clinic appointment). The groups of participants recruited via the two methods were compared based on baseline sociodemographic characteristics, weight, time since diagnosis, stage of disease, treatment, motivational readiness for physical activity, level of physical activity, self-reported physical and mental health, willingness to receive the intervention, and study retention.

Results

Participants recruited proactively were closer to the point of diagnosis (mean = 2.5 years, standard deviation (SD) = 1.9 years) than participants recruited reactively via letter mailings (mean = 3.4 years, SD = 2.3 years; p < .05). The two groups were similar with respect to all other baseline characteristics and retention.

Limitations

Recruitment via the two methods was not concurrent. Also, proactive recruitment occurred at a single hospital site. Mailings were made by the oncologists; we are unable to estimate how many letters were mailed. Similarly, we have no information for the patients who were not referred to the study during proactive recruitment.

Conclusions

Despite the potential for differences in characteristics and degree of trial participation between trial participants recruited proactively and reactively, in this investigation, the two groups were similar. Information from other trials in other conditions may confirm or modify our conclusion.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, 2011.

Knobf

. Psychosocial responses in breast cancer survivors. Semin Oncol Nurs 2007; 23(1): 71–83.

Jacobsen

Jim

. Psychosocial interventions for anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: Achievements and challenges. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(4): 214–30.

Fors

Bertheussen

Thune

. Psychosocial interventions as part of breast cancer rehabilitation programs? Results from a systematic review. Psychooncology 2010; 20(9): 909–18.

Holmes

Chen

WDF

Kroenke

Colditz

. Physical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA 2005; 293: 2479–86.

Irwin

Cadmus

Alvarez-Reeves

. Recruiting and retaining breast cancer survivors into a randomized controlled exercise trial: The Yale exercise and survivorship study. Cancer 2008; 112: 2593–606.

McNeely

Campbell

Rowe

. Effects of exercise on breast cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2006; 175(1): 34–41.

Speck

Courneya

Masse

Duval

Schmitz

. An update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Surviv 2010; 4(2): 87–100.

Schmitz

Courneya

Matthews

. American college of sports medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42(7): 1409–26.

10.

Fredman

Baucom

Gremore

. Quantifying the recruitment challenges with couple-based interventions for cancer: Applications to early-stage breast cancer. Psychooncology 2009; 18(6): 667–73.

11.

Boonzaier

Pollard

Ftanou

. The practical challenges of recruitment and retention when providing psychotherapy to advanced breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2010; 18: 1605–13.

12.

Holick

Newcomb

Trentham-Diaz

. Physical activity and survival after diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 379–86.

13.

Rogerino

Grant

Wilcox

III Schmitz

. Geographic recruitment of breast cancer survivors into community-based exercise interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41(7):1413–20.

14.

Morey

Snyder

Sloane

. Effects of home-based diet and exercise on functional outcomes among older, overweight long-term cancer survivors: The RENEW: Randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2009; 301(18): 1883–91.

15.

Pakilit

Kahn

Petersen

. Making effective use of tumor registries for cancer survivorship research. Cancer 2001; 92(5): 1305–14.

16.

Pinto

Trunzo

Rabin

. Recruitment strategies for a home-based physical activity intervention for breast cancer patients. J Clin Psychol Med S 2004; 11(3): 171–78.

17.

Schroy

III . A cost-effectiveness analysis of subject recruitment strategies in the HIPAA era: Results from a colorectal cancer screening adherence trial. Clin Trials 2009; 6(6): 597–609.

18.

Pinto

Papandonatos

Goldstein

. A randomized trial to promote physical activity among breast cancer patients. Health Psychol, in press.

19.

Blair

Haskell

. Assessment of habitual physical activity by seven day recall in a community survey and controlled experiments. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 122(5): 794–804.

20.

Brady

Cella

. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(3): 974–86.

21.

Radloff

. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psych Meas 1977; 1: 385–401.

22.

Marcus

Rossi

Selby

Niaura

Abrams

. The stages and processes of exercise adoption and maintenance in a worksite sample. Health Psychol 1992; 11: 386–95.

23.

Lee

McGinnis

Sallis

. Active vs. passive methods of recruiting ethnic minority women to a health promotion program. Ann Behav Med 1997; 19(4): 378–84.

24.

Linnan

Emmons

Klar

. Challenges to improving the impact of worksite cancer prevention programs: Comparing reach, enrollment, and attrition using active versus passive recruitment strategies. Ann Behav Med 2002; 24(2): 157–66.