Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Frey's Scenario F simulation mentioned in account of the Democratic Party's tribulations

U-M Poverty Solutions funds nine projects

Dynarski says NY's Excelsior Scholarship Program could crowd out low-income and minority students

More News

Highlights

Workshops on EndNote, NIH reporting, and publication altmetrics, Jan 26 through Feb 7, ISR

2017 PAA Annual Meeting, April 27-29, Chicago

NIH funding opportunity: Etiology of Health Disparities and Health Advantages among Immigrant Populations (R01 and R21), open Jan 2017

Russell Sage 2017 Summer Institute in Computational Social Science, June 18-July 1. Application deadline Feb 17.

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at noon:
Decline of cash assistance and child well-being, Luke Shaefer

Pregnancy Recruitment for Population Research: the National Children's Study Vanguard Experience in Wayne County, Michigan

Publication Abstract

Kerver, J., Michael R. Elliott, G. Norman, R. Sokol, D. Keating, G. Copeland, C. Johnson, K. Cislo, K. Alcser, S. Kruger-Ndiaye, B. Pennell, S. Mehta, C.M. Joseph, and N. Paneth. 2013. "Pregnancy Recruitment for Population Research: the National Children's Study Vanguard Experience in Wayne County, Michigan." Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 27(3): 303-311.

Background To obtain a probability sample of pregnancies, the National Children's Study conducted door-to-door recruitment in randomly selected neighbourhoods in randomly selected counties in 200910. In 2011, an experiment was conducted in 10 US counties, in which the two-stage geographic sample was maintained, but participants were recruited in prenatal care provider offices. We describe our experience recruiting pregnant women this way in Wayne County, Michigan, a county where geographically eligible women attended 147 prenatal care settings, and comprised just 2% of total county pregnancies. Methods After screening for address eligibility in prenatal care offices, we used a three-part recruitment process: (1) providers obtained permission for us to contact eligible patients, (2) clinical research staff described the study to women in clinical settings, and (3) survey research staff visited the home to consent and interview eligible women. Results We screened 34065 addresses in 67 provider settings to find 215 eligible women. Providers obtained permission for research contact from 81.4% of eligible women, of whom 92.5% agreed to a home visit. All home-visited women consented, giving a net enrolment of 75%. From birth certificates, we estimate that 30% of eligible county pregnancies were enrolled, reaching 4050% in the final recruitment months. Conclusions We recruited a high fraction of pregnancies identified in a broad cross-section of provider offices. Nonetheless, because of time and resource constraints, we could enrol only a fraction of geographically eligible pregnancies. Our experience suggests that the probability sampling of pregnancies for research could be more efficiently achieved through sampling of providers rather than households.

DOI:10.1111/ppe.12047 (Full Text)

PMCID: PMC3673293. (Pub Med Central)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next