Reasons for participation in a child development study: Are cases with developmental diagnoses different from controls?

Background: Current knowledge about parental reasons for allowing child participation in research comes mainly from clinical trials. Fewer data exist on parents’ motivations to enrol children in observational studies. Objectives: Describe reasons parents of preschoolers gave for participating in the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), a US multi-site study of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other developmental delays or disorders (DD), and explore reasons given by child diagnostic and behavioural characteristics at enrolment. Methods: We included families of children, age 2–5 years, participating in SEED (n = 5696) during 2007–2016. We assigned children to groups based on characteristics at enrolment: previously diagnosed ASD; suspected ASD; non-ASD DD; and population controls (POP). During a study interview, we asked parents their reasons for participating. Two coders independently coded responses and resolved discrepancies via consensus. We fit binary mixed-effects models to evaluate associations of each reason with group and demographics, using POP as reference. Results: Participants gave 1–5 reasons for participation (mean = 1.7, SD = 0.7). Altruism (48.3%), ASD research interest (47.4%) and perceived personal benefit (26.9%) were most common. Two novel reasons were knowing someone outside the household with the study conditions (peripheral relationship; 14.1%) and desire to contribute to a specified result (1.4%). Odds of reporting interest in ASD research were higher among diagnosed ASD participants (odds ratio [OR] 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.49–3.35). Perceived personal benefit had higher odds among diagnosed (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.61–2.29) or suspected ASD (OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.99–4.50) and non-ASD DD (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.50–2.16) participants. Peripheral relationship with ASD/DD had lower odds among all case groups. Conclusions: We identified meaningful differences between groups in parent-reported reasons for participation. Differences demonstrate an opportunity for future studies to tailor recruitment materials and increase the perceived benefit for specific prospective participants

Demographic and Operational Factors Predicting Study Completion in a Multisite Case-Control Study of Preschool Children

Participant attrition can limit inferences drawn from study results and inflate research costs. We examined factors associated with completion of the Study to Explore Early Development (2007-2011), a multiple-component, case-control study of risk factors for autism spectrum disorder in preschoolers, conducted in California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Participants (n = 3,769) were asked to complete phone interviews, questionnaires, an in-person evaluation, and biologic sampling. We examined whether participant demographic and administrative factors predicted completion using mixed-effects logistic regression models. Completion of individual key study components was generally 70% or higher. However, 58% of families completed all per-protocol data elements (defined a priori as key study components). Per-protocol completion differed according to mother's age, race, educational level, driving distance to clinic, number of contact attempts to enroll, and number of telephone numbers provided (all P < 0.05). Case status was not associated with completion, despite additional data collection for case-confirmation. Analysis of a subset that completed an early interview revealed no differences in completion by household factors of income, primary language spoken, number of adults, or number of children with chronic conditions. Differences in completion by race and education were notable and need to be carefully considered in developing future recruitment and completion strategies