Authors

  1. Knotts, Allison MS
  2. Hammond, Flora MD
  3. Hirsch, Mark PhD
  4. Hart, Tessa PhD
  5. Dikmen, Sureyya PhD
  6. Bell, Kathy MD

Article Content

Objectives: (1) To discuss the impact of attrition on research and considerations in select populations, (2) to present strategies aimed at minimizing attrition based on the literature, and (3) to present results of the TBI model systems. Methods: Current literature on attrition was reviewed and comprehensive strategies were outlined. Results: Attrition impact and risk factors are outlined. Researchers should consider contact information, project name/logo, tollfree line; intensive initial efforts, staff awareness, data-collection times/methods, and frequent mailings, defining a specific follow-up protocol. Participants are more likely to continue when there is rapport, understanding, convenience, feedback, incentive, and motivation. Conclusions: Attrition carries a high cost for research and may lead to misinterpretations during data analysis. Researchers must develop a comprehensive plan to minimize this loss.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. Mihelic A, Crimmins E. Loss to follow-up in a sample of Americans 70 years of age and older: the LSOA 1984-1990. J Gerontol. 1997;52B:(1):537-548.

 

2. Corrigan J, Harrison-Felix C, Bogner J, Dijkers M, Terrill MS, Whiteneck G. Systematic bias in traumatic brain injury outcome studies because of loss to follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:153-159.

 

3. Brooks C, Gabella B, Hoffman R, Sosin D, Whiteneck G. Traumatic brain injury: designing and implementing a population-based follow-up system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(8 suppl 4):S26-S30.

 

4. Psaty BM, Cheadle A, Koepsell TD, et al. Race and ethnicity-specific characteristics of participants lost to follow-up in a telephone cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(2):161-171.

 

5. Ribisl KM, Walton MA, Mowbray CT, et al. Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: review and recommendations. Eval Program Plann. 1996;19(1):1-25.