Recruitment and Retention of Parents of Adolescents in a Text Messaging Trial (MyTeen): Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenting programs are well established as an effective strategy for enhancing both parenting skills and the well-being of the child. However, recruitment for family programs in clinical and nonclinical settings remains low. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the recruitment and retention methods used in a text messaging program (MyTeen) trial for parents of adolescents (10-15 years) and identify key lessons learned. We aim to provide insights and direction for researchers who seek to recruit parents and build on the limited literature on recruitment and retention strategies for parenting program trials. METHODS: A recruitment plan was developed, monitored, and modified as needed throughout the course of the project. Strategies to facilitate recruitment were identified (eg, program content and recruitment material, staff characteristics, and study procedures). Traditional and web-based recruitment strategies were used. RESULTS: Over a 5-month period, 319 parents or caregivers expressed interest in our study, of which 221 agreed to participate in the study, exceeding our recruitment target of 214 participants. Attrition was low at the 1-month (4.5% overall; intervention group: n=5, 4.6%; control group: n=5, 4.5%) and 3-month follow-ups (9% overall; intervention group: n=10, 9.2%; control group: n=10, 8.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of web-based recruitment strategies appeared to be most effective for recruiting and retaining parents in a text-messaging program trial. However, we encountered recruitment challenges (ie, underrepresentation of ethnic minority groups and fathers) similar to those reported in the literature. Therefore, efforts to engage ethnic minorities and fathers are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000117213; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374307.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.086 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".