Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Int J Eat Disord. 2020 May;53(5):476-484. doi: 10.1002/eat.23250. Epub 2020 Feb 29.
Using data from a randomized controlled trial, we examined two different strategies to recruit participants for an indicated preventive intervention (StudentBodies-AN) for women at risk for anorexia nervosa and compared symptom severity and program utilization in participants recruited through each strategy.
We recruited participants by announcing the study (a) in lectures at universities and handing out screening questionnaires (face-to-face recruitment) and (b) through different media channels, and the participants completed the screening questionnaire on our study website (media-based recruitment). We compared symptom severity and program utilization between the two groups.
A total of 4,646 women (face-to-face: 3,741, media-based: 905) were screened and 168 women (face-to-face: 114, media-based: 54) were randomized to the intervention. We found a statistically and clinically significant association between recruitment strategy and symptom severity: Participants who were recruited through media were more likely to fulfill the inclusion criteria (40.6% vs. 13.3%; p < .001) and endorsed significantly more frequently core behaviors and attitudes of disordered eating (EDE global score: 2.72 vs. 2.17, p < .05; Weight Concerns Scale [WCS] score: 66.05 vs. 56.40, p < .05) at baseline than participants recruited face-to-face. Also, participants recruited through media were more likely to log onto the program (χ = 5.06; p = .029) and accessed more of the intervention.
Recruitment through media seems both more feasible and suitable to reach individuals in need of indicative prevention, and should be part of a multimodal recruitment package. Future studies should be explicitly designed to investigate the impact of recruitment modality on reach and effectiveness including cost-effectiveness analyses.
利用一项随机对照试验的数据,我们考察了两种不同的策略,以招募有厌食症风险的女性参与有针对性的预防干预(StudentBodies-AN),并比较了通过每种策略招募的参与者的症状严重程度和项目利用情况。
我们通过在大学讲座中宣布研究(a)并分发筛查问卷(面对面招募)和(b)通过不同的媒体渠道,并让参与者在我们的研究网站上完成筛查问卷(基于媒体的招募)来招募参与者。我们比较了两组的症状严重程度和项目利用情况。
共有 4646 名女性(面对面:3741 名,基于媒体:905 名)接受了筛查,168 名女性(面对面:114 名,基于媒体:54 名)被随机分配到干预组。我们发现招募策略与症状严重程度之间存在统计学和临床显著关联:通过媒体招募的参与者更有可能符合纳入标准(40.6%比 13.3%;p<.001),并且更频繁地表现出饮食障碍的核心行为和态度(EDE 总分:2.72 比 2.17,p<.05;体重关注量表[WCS]得分:66.05 比 56.40,p<.05)在基线时比面对面招募的参与者。此外,通过媒体招募的参与者更有可能登录该计划(χ=5.06;p=0.029)并访问更多的干预内容。
通过媒体进行招募似乎既更加可行又适合接触需要指示性预防的个体,应成为多模式招募方案的一部分。未来的研究应明确设计,以调查招募方式对接触和效果的影响,包括成本效益分析。