Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting
Abstract Background Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. Methods In two...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2016-10-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z |
| _version_ | 1818586230891216896 |
|---|---|
| author | Melissa A. Valerio Natalia Rodriguez Paula Winkler Jaime Lopez Meagen Dennison Yuanyuan Liang Barbara J. Turner |
| author_facet | Melissa A. Valerio Natalia Rodriguez Paula Winkler Jaime Lopez Meagen Dennison Yuanyuan Liang Barbara J. Turner |
| author_sort | Melissa A. Valerio |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. Methods In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities’ stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community. Results Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05). Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the snowball sampling group. Conclusions In each of the two similar hard-to-reach communities, a community advisory board partnered with researchers to implement a different sampling method to recruit stakeholders. The snowball sampling method achieved greater participation with more Hispanics but also more individuals with disabilities than a purposive-convenience sampling method. However, priorities for research on chronic pain from both stakeholder groups were similar. Although utilizing a snowball sampling method appears to be superior, further research is needed on implementation costs and resources. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T08:49:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2b6459d077794dc88d63844d29f7dfad |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2288 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T08:49:40Z |
| publishDate | 2016-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| spelling | doaj.art-2b6459d077794dc88d63844d29f7dfad2022-12-21T22:37:30ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882016-10-0116111110.1186/s12874-016-0242-zComparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority settingMelissa A. Valerio0Natalia Rodriguez1Paula Winkler2Jaime Lopez3Meagen Dennison4Yuanyuan Liang5Barbara J. Turner6Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science, University of Texas School of Public Health in San AntonioCenter for Research to Advance Community Health (ReACH), University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)Center for Research to Advance Community Health (ReACH), University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)Frio County AgriLife ExtensionKarnes County AgriLife ExtensionCenter for Research to Advance Community Health (ReACH), University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)Center for Research to Advance Community Health (ReACH), University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)Abstract Background Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. Methods In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities’ stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community. Results Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05). Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the snowball sampling group. Conclusions In each of the two similar hard-to-reach communities, a community advisory board partnered with researchers to implement a different sampling method to recruit stakeholders. The snowball sampling method achieved greater participation with more Hispanics but also more individuals with disabilities than a purposive-convenience sampling method. However, priorities for research on chronic pain from both stakeholder groups were similar. Although utilizing a snowball sampling method appears to be superior, further research is needed on implementation costs and resources.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-016-0242-zResearch methodsSampling studiesVulnerable populationsChronic painCommunity-based participatory research |
| spellingShingle | Melissa A. Valerio Natalia Rodriguez Paula Winkler Jaime Lopez Meagen Dennison Yuanyuan Liang Barbara J. Turner Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting BMC Medical Research Methodology Research methods Sampling studies Vulnerable populations Chronic pain Community-based participatory research |
| title | Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting |
| title_full | Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting |
| title_fullStr | Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting |
| title_short | Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting |
| title_sort | comparing two sampling methods to engage hard to reach communities in research priority setting |
| topic | Research methods Sampling studies Vulnerable populations Chronic pain Community-based participatory research |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT melissaavalerio comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting AT nataliarodriguez comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting AT paulawinkler comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting AT jaimelopez comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting AT meagendennison comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting AT yuanyuanliang comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting AT barbarajturner comparingtwosamplingmethodstoengagehardtoreachcommunitiesinresearchprioritysetting |