Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

The Diabetes Educator

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Health Promotion Practice
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by Orians, C. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by Orians, C. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Considerations in Recruiting Underscreened Women to Focus Groups on Screening for Cervical Cancer

Katherine M. Wilson, PhD, MPH

Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Carlyn E. Orians, MA

Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation in Seattle, Washington.

This article describes recruitment activities and costs from two independently conducted studies that used similar, systematic approaches to recruiting two subgroups of underscreened women, Black women and Mexican women. The studies varied in number of recruiters, venues of recruitment, and region of the country. The ratio of women approached to women who were underscreened was 4:1 for Black women and 10:1 for Mexican women. Hysterectomy was a predominant reason for ineligibility among Black women but not Mexican women. In both studies, personal networks were the most productive method of identifying women. Flyers and organized community venues were least productive. The cost incurred for identifying a woman who was eligible for a focus group was $145 for Black women and $59 for Mexican women. Those planning research or program activities that include recruiting underscreened women either to focus groups or health services could benefit from this information.

Key Words: Black women • cervical cancer screening • focus groups • recruitment • formative research

Health Promotion Practice, Vol. 6, No. 4, 379-384 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1524839905278755


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
M. A. Clark, C. J. Neighbors, M. R. Wasserman, G. F. Armstrong, M. L. Drnach, S. L. Howie, and T. L. Hawthorne
Strategies and Cost of Recruitment of Middle-aged and Older Unmarried Women in a Cancer Screening Study
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2007; 16(12): 2605 - 2614.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]