23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations in Alzheimer's disease research: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Yet, these populations are significantly underrepresented in research.

          Methods

          We systematically reviewed the literature for published reports describing recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in ADRD research or underrepresented participants' perspectives regarding ADRD research participation. Relevant evidence was synthesized and evaluated for quality.

          Results

          We identified 22 eligible studies. Seven studies focused on recruitment/retention approaches, all of which included multifaceted efforts and at least one community outreach component. There was considerable heterogeneity in approaches used, specific activities and strategies, outcome measurement, and conclusions regarding effectiveness. Despite limited use of prospective evaluation strategies, most authors reported improvements in diverse representation in ADRD cohorts. Studies evaluating participant views focused largely on predetermined explanations of participation including attitudes, barriers/facilitators, education, trust, and religiosity. Across all studies, the strength of evidence was low.

          Discussion

          Overall, the quantity and quality of available evidence to inform best practices in recruitment, retention, and inclusion of underrepresented populations in ADRD research are low. Further efforts to systematically evaluate the success of existing and emergent approaches will require improved methodological standards and uniform measures for evaluating recruitment, participation, and inclusivity.

          Highlights

          • There is a limited evidence base to inform applied ADRD recruitment approaches.

          • Efforts to improve ADRD research inclusion vary widely in design and evaluation.

          • Methodological standards can help inform an applied science of ADRD recruitment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity.

          Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged in the last decades as a transformative research paradigm that bridges the gap between science and practice through community engagement and social action to increase health equity. CBPR expands the potential for the translational sciences to develop, implement, and disseminate effective interventions across diverse communities through strategies to redress power imbalances; facilitate mutual benefit among community and academic partners; and promote reciprocal knowledge translation, incorporating community theories into the research. We identify the barriers and challenges within the intervention and implementation sciences, discuss how CBPR can address these challenges, provide an illustrative research example, and discuss next steps to advance the translational science of CBPR.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

            To assess the experienced or perceived barriers and facilitators to health research participation for major US racial/ethnic minority populations, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies from a search on PubMed and Web of Science from January 2000 to December 2011. With 44 articles included in the review, we found distinct and shared barriers and facilitators. Despite different expressions of mistrust, all groups represented in these studies were willing to participate for altruistic reasons embedded in cultural and community priorities. Greater comparative understanding of barriers and facilitators to racial/ethnic minorities' research participation can improve population-specific recruitment and retention strategies and could better inform future large-scale prospective quantitative and in-depth ethnographic studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The use of theory in health behavior research from 2000 to 2005: a systematic review.

              Theory-based health behavior change programs are thought to be more effective than those that do not use theory. No previous reviews have assessed the extent to which theory is used (that is, operationalized and tested) in empirical research. The purpose of this study was to describe theory use in recent health behavior literature and to assess the proportion of research that uses theory along a continuum from: informed by theory to applying, testing, or building theory. A sample of empirical research articles (n = 193) published in ten leading public health, medicine, and psychology journals from 2000 to 2005 was coded to determine whether and how theory was used. Of health behavior articles in the sample, 35.7% mentioned theory. The most-often-used theories were The Transtheoretical Model, Social Cognitive Theory, and Health Belief Model. Most theory use (68.1%) involved research that was informed by theory; 18% applied theory; 3.6% tested theory; and 9.4% sought to build theory. About one third of published health behavior research uses theory and a small proportion of those studies rigorously apply theory. Patterns of theory use are similar to reports from the mid-1990s. Behavioral researchers should strive to use theory more thoroughly by applying, testing, and building theories in order to move the field forward.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Alzheimers Dement (N Y)
                Alzheimers Dement (N Y)
                Alzheimer's & Dementia : Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
                Elsevier
                2352-8737
                19 November 2019
                2019
                19 November 2019
                : 5
                : 751-770
                Affiliations
                [a ]Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
                [b ]University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing, Madison, WI, USA
                [c ]William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Madison, WI, USA
                [d ]Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
                [e ]Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
                [f ]Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
                [g ]Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA
                [h ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Tel.: (608) 262-3057; Fax: (608) 280-7248. algilmore@ 123456wisc.edu
                Article
                S2352-8737(19)30079-4
                10.1016/j.trci.2019.09.018
                6944728
                31921966
                128738bb-373b-4de2-b413-ca84b75f18ce
                © 2019 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Review Article

                dementia,recruitment science,recruitment and retention,recruitment interventions,disparities,representation in research

                Comments

                Comment on this article