Ed for the approach of participantdriven recruitment (Halpern; 2005; Miller Rosenstein, 2002; Semaan
Ed Acetovanillone site towards the process of participantdriven recruitment (Halpern; 2005; Miller Rosenstein, 2002; Semaan et al, 2009).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript MethodsData analyzed for this paper have been drawn from a mixedmethod RDS study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (20204) that systematically examined peer recruitment dynamics and the network structure of a sample of IDUs to test the validity of RDS statistical inference models’ underlying assumption about peer recruitment and social networks. A total of 526 IDUs in Hartford, CT had been recruited by means of peer referral utilizing common RDS style and procedures (Heckathorn, 997, 2002, 2007; Heckathorn, et alInt J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; obtainable in PMC 206 September 0.Mosher et al.Page2002; Salganik Heckathorn, 2004). Eligible participants have been eight years and above, residents of Hartford, and had injected illicit drugs inside the final 30 days. Participants have been administered a baseline survey and also a 2month followup survey that included participants’ demographics, threat behaviors, social network composition, and peer recruitment intention, practice and results. Utilizing a sequential mixed techniques style (Tashakkori Teddlie, 998, 2003), survey demographics had been applied to purposively select a nested sample (Onwuegbuzie Collins, 2007; Onwuegbuzie Leech, 2007) of participants for qualitative indepth interviews. We utilized a maximum variation sampling strategy (Onwuegbuzie Collins, 2007; Sankoff, 97) to maximize the selection of perspectives and experiences using the recruitment process and to acquire representativeness by means of intracultural diversity. The nested sample was selected from the 2month followup survey sample (8.2 of baseline sample) to represent the composition with the bigger sample in ethnicityrace, homelessness, in addition to a balanced proportion of productive recruiters (i.e who effectively referred or extra participants) and nonproductive recruiters. Females have been oversampled in an effort to capture patterns inside and across gender. This sampling approach was executed at 3 points all through the study: inside the initially two months of your 2month survey (n20), midway by way of recruitment from the complete sample (in the course of months 90 of sample recruitment; n20) and at the finish with the study from the final 00 participants inside the RDS survey sample (n20). The intent was to capture peer recruitment patterns at later stages in the study as it became additional tough to PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24357672 recruit network members who had not but participated. Comparison of demographic traits involving the interview sample and those people who didn’t take part in the interview and only took the survey revealed no important variations amongst the two subsamples (Table ), except on gender and also the typical variety of recruits who returned coupons. We interviewed a larger percentage of women and productive recruiters as compared to the bigger nointerview survey sample. Having said that, we don’t believe that these differences have substantial influence around the generalizability of these findings, as the purpose of this qualitative paper just isn’t to assess the scope of every single style of peer recruitment methods, but rather to develop a deep understanding of the selection of recruitment techniques within the context of distinct participants’ lives and contexts. Study Procedures In the formative phase from the study, a team of ethnographers conducted three months of outreach and ethnographic field observations to understand the existing loca.
