title: Prospective evaluation of two recruitment strategies for a randomized controlled cancer prevention trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate two recruitment strategies used during the full-scale randomized, placebo-controlled Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) at one clinical center.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Recruitment of participants to cancer prevention trials is challenging and costly and more efficient methods are needed.
  
  
  METHODS
  SELECT participants were males ≥60 years old who were solicited with two recruitment strategies. In the control strategy, potential participants, identified through purchased mailing lists, were sent a SELECT invitation letter. In the 'spouse' strategy, letters were sent to married postmenopausal women already participating in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) at our clinical center asking them to provide an enclosed SELECT invitation letter (identical to the one in the control strategy) to the 'man in her life'. Our hypothesis was that SELECT recruitment of men would be enhanced by this indirect mailing to their spouses already participating in a similar program.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the control strategy, 183,315 invitation letters were mailed to 60,000 men; cumulative response was 2.16%; 600 men ultimately enrolled in SELECT (15.1% of respondents) for a mailing recruitment cost of $259 per participant. In the spouse strategy, 800 women participating in WHI clinical studies had husbands; of the 2214 invitation letters mailed to this group of women, cumulative response was 2.75%; 34 men ultimately enrolled in SELECT (55.7% of respondents) for a mailing recruitment cost of $59 per participant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Process information on how invitation letters were handled in the spouse strategy was not collected.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A direct mail recruitment strategy was successful in recruiting men to a cancer prevention trial. A recruitment strategy involving indirect mailing to married women participating in a similar research program in the same center did not increase initial response substantially, but a higher proportion of respondents ultimately entered the prevention trial.
authors.affiliation: Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. rchlebowski@gmail.com
authors.forename: Rowan T
authors.initials: RT
authors.lastname: Chlebowski
authors.forename: Rashmi
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Menon
authors.forename: Roslyn M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Chaisanguanthum
authors.forename: D Marie
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Jackson
mesh_terms: D000975:Antioxidants / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018579:Patient Selection; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000517:prevention & control*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D012643:Selenium / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D014810:Vitamin E / Q000627:therapeutic use*
chemical_list: D000975:Antioxidants; D014810:Vitamin E; D012643:Selenium