Effectiveness and cost of recruitment strategies for a community-based randomised controlled trial among rainwater drinkers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Community-based recruitment is challenging particularly if the sampling frame is not easily defined as in the case of people who drink rainwater. Strategies for contacting participants must be carefully considered to maximise generalisability and minimise bias of the results. This paper assesses the recruitment strategies for a 1-year double-blinded randomised trial on drinking untreated rainwater. The effectiveness of the recruitment strategies and associated costs are described.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Community recruitment of households from Adelaide, Australia occurred from February to July 2007 using four methods: electoral roll mail-out, approaches to schools and community groups, newspaper advertising, and other media involvement. Word of mouth communication was also assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 810 callers were screened, with 53.5% eligible. Of those who were eligible and sent further information, 76.7% were willing to participate in the study and 75.1% were enrolled. The target for recruitment was 300 households, and this was achieved. The mail-out was the most effective method with respect to number of households randomised, while recruitment via schools had the highest yield (57.3%) and was the most cost effective when considering cost per household randomised (AUD$147.20). Yield and cost effectiveness were lowest for media advertising.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The use of electoral roll mail-out and advertising via schools were effective in reaching households using untreated rainwater for drinking. Employing multiple strategies enabled success in achieving the recruitment target. In countries where electoral roll extracts are available to researchers, this method is likely to have a high yield for recruitment into community-based epidemiological studies.</p

Additional file 4 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 4: Supplemental results.1. README. 2. Prevalence range across districts. 3. Prevalence range between sexes. 4. Prevalence range between ages. 5. Age-specific district ranges