Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Parents Experiencing Vulnerability: Lessons from an Online Parenting Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supportive parenting programs can promote parent-child interactions and children's development. However, families experiencing vulnerability (e.g., low socioeconomic status) report barriers (e.g., transportation, distrust of researchers) to research participation, and attrition rates of 40% and higher have been reported in parenting research. In response, we conducted a longitudinal evaluation of a digital parenting program in a major metropolitan centre in western Canada and retained 99% of our sample. AIM: Review recruitment and retention strategies employed in the First Pathways study and evaluate associations between sociodemographic (e.g., income) and psychosocial (e.g., parental depression) factors with recruitment and retention strategies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In collaboration with community agencies, we commenced recruitment of 100 families experiencing vulnerability (e.g., low-income) in June 2021. We utilized strategies to engage staff (e.g., presentations, gift cards, updates) and employed snowball sampling. Families recruited through community agencies were significantly more likely to experience vulnerability (e.g., low income and education, high adverse experiences) compared to families in the snowball sample. We incorporated strategies to minimize participant burden (e.g., choice of online or in-person meetings), promoted rapport (e.g., holiday texts, nonjudgmental environment), incorporated trauma-informed practices (e.g., sensitive inquiry), and demonstrated appreciation for participants' contributions (i.e., honorarium). Family experiences of vulnerability (i.e., low income, depressive symptoms, adversity) were correlated with higher participant rescheduling. CONCLUSION: Nurses need knowledge of strategies to promote equitable access to research for families experiencing vulnerability. Digital programs with protocols designed to establish rapport, include trauma-informed practices, and minimize participant burden will likely optimize participation and retention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".