About: Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : wasabi.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Creator	Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Matthew Greenwood, Chris Hutchinson, Delyse Sciberras, Emma Shatte, Adrian Teague, Samantha Macdonald, Jacqui Olsson, Craig Youssef, George Mcintosh, Jennifer
Source	Medline; PMC
abstract	BACKGROUND: Participant retention strategies that minimise attrition in longitudinal cohort studies have evolved considerably in recent years. This study aimed to assess, via systematic review and meta-analysis, the effectiveness of both traditional strategies and contemporary innovations for retention adopted by longitudinal cohort studies in the past decade. METHODS: Health research databases were searched for retention strategies used within longitudinal cohort studies published in the 10-years prior, with 143 eligible longitudinal cohort studies identified (141 articles; sample size range: 30 to 61,895). Details on retention strategies and rates, research designs, and participant demographics were extracted. Meta-analyses of retained proportions were performed to examine the association between cohort retention rate and individual and thematically grouped retention strategies. RESULTS: Results identified 95 retention strategies, broadly classed as either: barrier-reduction, community-building, follow-up/reminder, or tracing strategies. Forty-four of these strategies had not been identified in previous reviews. Meta-regressions indicated that studies using barrier-reduction strategies retained 10% more of their sample (95%CI [0.13 to 1.08]; p = .01); however, studies using follow-up/reminder strategies lost an additional 10% of their sample (95%CI [− 1.19 to − 0.21]; p = .02). The overall number of strategies employed was not associated with retention. CONCLUSIONS: Employing a larger number of retention strategies may not be associated with improved retention in longitudinal cohort studies, contrary to earlier narrative reviews. Results suggest that strategies that aim to reduce participant burden (e.g., flexibility in data collection methods) might be most effective in maximising cohort retention. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
has issue date	2018-11-26(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7
bibo:pmid	30477443
has license	cc-by
sha1sum (hex)	918502b9ff6b04705babfc9e08f9b0f7c7ece9cc
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7
resource representing a document's title	Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC6258319
has PubMed identifier	30477443
schema:publication	BMC Med Res Methodol
resource representing a document's body	covid:918502b9ff6b04705babfc9e08f9b0f7c7ece9cc#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'This' named entity 'RETENTION' covid:arg/918502b9ff6b04705babfc9e08f9b0f7c7ece9cc named entity 'RETENTION' named entity 'EFFECTIVENESS' named entity 'SYSTEMATIC REVIEW' named entity 'ATTRITION' named entity 'META-ANALYSIS' named entity 'ASSESS' named entity 'STRATEGIES' named entity 'COHORT STUDIES' named entity 'HAVE' named entity 'LONGITUDINAL COHORT' named entity 'SYSTEMATIC REVIEW' named entity 'BACKGROUND' named entity 'STRATEGIES' named entity 'COHORT STUDIES' named entity 'ANALYSIS' named entity 'TRADITIONAL' named entity 'IN THE PAST' named entity 'ADOPTED' named entity 'LONGITUDINAL COHORT' named entity 'RECENT' named entity 'STUDY' named entity 'DECADE' named entity 'PARTICIPANT' named entity 'META' named entity 'EVOLVED' named entity 'YEARS' named entity 'effectiveness' named entity 'strategies' named entity 'innovations' named entity 'cohort studies' named entity 'systematic review' named entity 'longitudinal cohort studies' named entity 'longitudinal cohort studies' named entity 'follow-up' named entity 'longitudinal cohort studies' named entity 'research staff' named entity 'longitudinal cohort studies' named entity 'binary variable' named entity 'lost to follow-up' named entity 'sample size' named entity 'research design' named entity 'follow-up' named entity 'Medline' named entity 'predictor variables' named entity 'alternative methods' named entity 'longitudinal research' named entity 'Bangkok' named entity 'health problems' named entity 'Meta-analyses' named entity 'follow-up' named entity 'longitudinal cohort studies' named entity 'alternative methods' named entity 'longitudinal cohort studies' named entity 'meta-regression' named entity 'CINAHL' named entity 'clinical trial' named entity 'data collection' named entity 'treatment regimens' named entity 'follow-up' named entity 'retention rates' named entity 'research question' named entity 'high-risk groups' named entity 'health research' named entity 'logit' named entity 'costs and benefits' named entity 'peer-reviewed' named entity 'statistical power' named entity 'SMS' named entity 'clinical samples'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software