Nominal Versus Realized Costs of Recruiting and Retaining a National Sample of Sexual Minority Adolescents in the United States: Longitudinal Study

Strategies to develop an LGBTQIA+-inclusive adolescent sexual health program evaluation

Introduction

Adolescent sexual health interventions are increasingly incorporating content that is inclusive of LGBTQIA+ youth (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and other marginalized sexualities and genders). Evaluations of such programs must also be inclusive to enhance the validity of evaluation results and avoid further marginalization. We present strategies for increasing LGBTQIA+-inclusivity based on our evaluation of SafeSpace, a sexual health curriculum.

Methods

To design an LGBTQIA+-inclusive program evaluation, we leveraged LGBTQIA+ research staff's insights, pursued a parental consent waiver, developed an inclusive recruitment plan, and crafted demographic and sexual behavior survey measures with input from youth and equity experts. We conducted a pilot study with 42 youth ages 14-17 to assess the feasibility and efficacy of our strategies.

Results

We obtained a parental consent waiver and recruited a majority LGBTQIA+ pilot study sample (62%). Using themes from cognitive interviews with youth and experts regarding inclusive framing and use of plain language, we refined demographic measures and expanded sexual behavior measures.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that the strategies used to enhance LGBTQIA+-inclusivity in our evaluation of SafeSpace were effective in respectfully and more accurately capturing a fuller range of experiences and identities of LGBTQIA+ and cis-straight youth. The strategies and survey measures developed for this study can be applied to increase LGBTQIA+-inclusivity in other adolescent sexual health program evaluations.

Recruitment of older adults from long-term care settings for a longitudinal clinical trial

Recruitment of residents for research from long-term care settings is known to be difficult. The purpose of this study was to summarize the effectiveness and cost in terms of time and dollars of recruitment methods for a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in long-term care settings. This study was a retrospective, exploratory, descriptive analysis of recruitment data. After recruitment of 15 independent and assisted living communities, residents at each site were recruited to participate in the study using combinations of 12 different recruitment methods. Recruitment methods, time spent screening, and enrollment data were collected. Recruitment data were analyzed at the levels of site, research staff member, and participant. Over the study period, 279 older adults were screened and 172 enrolled from the 15 sites. Many participants were cognitively impaired. Research staff spent 39-89 h recruiting at each site and utilized an average of four different recruitment methods per site. Introductions of participants by site contacts yielded the most consented participants compared to other recruitment methods. Sites that had a dedicated recruiter utilized more recruiting methods and enrolled more participants than those without a dedicated recruiter. The cost of recruiting averaged $1490 per site and $93-$258 per enrollee (mean $144, standard deviation $58), but was more costly in larger facilities. Recruitment of older adults from long-term care communities requires multiple methods of recruitment, skilled recruitment staff, and trust with the staff and potential participants.