Recruitment strategies and retention rates for five National Dental PBRN studies

Rahma Mungia; Ellen Funkhouser; David L Cochran; Joana Cunha-Cruz; Valeria V Gordan; Donald B Rindal; Cyril Meyerowitz; Veerasathpurush Allareddy; Jeffrey L Fellows; Gregg H Gilbert; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

doi:10.1017/cts.2024.499

Recruitment strategies and retention rates for five National Dental PBRN studies

J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Mar 22;8(1):e56. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.499. eCollection 2024.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
² Division of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
³ Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
⁴ Director of Practice-based Research and Associate Dean for Research, University of Florida, College of Dentistry, Gainesville, FL, USA.
⁵ Associate Dental Director for Research, HealthPartners Dental Group, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
⁶ Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
⁷ Brodie Craniofacial Endowed Chair, and Head of Department of Orthodontics, University of Illinois Chicago College of Dentistry, Chicago, IL, USA.
⁸ Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
⁹ Department of Clinical & Community Sciences, Distinguished Professor and the James R. Rosen Chair of Dental Research Chair, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Abstract

Background: We describe a retrospective assessment of practitioner and patient recruitment strategies, patient retention strategies, and rates for five clinical studies conducted in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network between 2012 and 2019, and practitioner and patient characteristics associated with retention.

Methods: Similar recruitment strategies were adopted in the studies. The characteristics of the practitioners and patients are described. The proportion of patients who either attended a follow-up (FU) assessment or completed an online assessment was calculated. For studies with multiple FU visits or questionnaire assessments, rates for completing each FU were calculated, as were the rates for completing any and for completing all FU assessments. The associations of practitioner and patient characteristics with all clinic FU visits, and with the completion of all assessments for a study were ascertained.

Results: Overall, 591 practitioners and 12,159 patients were included. FU rates by patients for any assessment varied from 91% to 96.5%, and rates for participating in all assessments ranged from 68% to 87%. The mean total number of patients each practitioner recruited was 21 (sd = 15); the mean number per study was 13 (sd = 7). For practitioners, practice type and patient enrollment were associated with greater clinic retention, while only race was associated with their patients completing post-visit online assessments. For patients, age was associated with clinic retention, while female gender, age, race, and education were all associated with greater completion of post-visit online assessments.

Conclusion: The Network efficiently recruited practitioners and patients and achieved high patient retention rates for the five studies.

Keywords: Prospective studies; clinical study; dentistry; patient characteristics; patient retention; practice characteristics; practitioner characteristics; practitioner retention methods.