↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Best strategies to recruit and enroll elderly Blacks into clinical and biomedical research

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Best strategies to recruit and enroll elderly Blacks into clinical and biomedical research
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s130112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lennox A Graham, Julius Ngwa, Oyonumo Ntekim, Oludolapo Ogunlana, Saba Wolday, Steven Johnson, Megan Johnson, Chimene Castor, Thomas V Fungwe, Thomas O Obisesan

Abstract

Historically, Blacks have been disproportionately underrepresented in clinical trials. Outcomes associated with low Blacks' participation in research include poor understanding of the predictors and treatment of the disease, increasing health disparities, poor health equity, and suboptimal wellness of the nation as a whole. To address this gap in research participation, we analyzed our recruitment data to identify the most effective strategies for enrolling older Blacks in clinical trials. Data used in these analyses were obtained from 3,266 potential volunteers, ages 50 or older, who completed a Mini-Mental State Exam as part of recruitment and screening for various clinical studies on Alzheimer's disease. In order to determine the most effective strategies for engaging Blacks in clinical research, we used tests of proportion to assess significant differences in recruitment sources, counts, and percentages for optimal recruitment strategies by gender. Finally, we employed regression analyses to confirm our findings. Of the total 3,266 screened, 2,830 Black volunteers were identified for further analysis. Overall, more women than men (73.8% vs 26.2%) participated in our recruitment activities. However, a significantly higher proportion of men than women were engaged through family (3.86% vs 1.30%, p=0.0004) and referral sources (5.89% vs 2.59%, p=0.0005). Compared to other sources for recruitment, we encountered a higher proportion of volunteers at health fairs (42.95%), and through advertisements (14.97%). In our sample, years of education and age did not appear to influence the likelihood of an encounter, screening, and potential participation. Our findings indicate Black men and women in our sample were predominantly recruited from health fairs and through advertisements tailored to their health needs and interests. Conversely, we mostly engaged Black men through family referrals and persons known to them, indicating a need for trust in their decision to engage study personnel and/or participate in clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 24%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Psychology 4 12%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 13 38%

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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#9,467,946
of 12,359,775 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#900
of 1,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,658
of 350,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#35
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,359,775 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 350,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.