Search

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a long-standing and important design for conducting rigorous tests of the effectiveness of health interventions. However, many questions have been raised about the external validity of RCTs, their utility in explicating mechanisms of intervention and participants’ intervention experiences, and their feasibility and acceptability. In the current mixed-methods study, academic and community partners developed and implemented an RCT to test the effectiveness of a collaboratively developed community-based advocacy, learning, and social support intervention. The goals of the intervention were to address social determinants of health and build trust and connections with other mental health services in order to reduce mental health disparities among Afghan, Great Lakes Region African, and Iraqi refugee adults and to engage and retain refugees in trauma-focused treatment, if needed. Two cohorts completed the intervention between 2013 and 2015. Ninety-three adult refugees were randomly assigned to intervention or control group and completed four research interviews (pre-, mid-, and postintervention, and follow-up). Several challenges to conducting a community-based RCT emerged, including issues related to interviewer intervention to assist participants in the control group, diffusion of intervention resources throughout the small refugee communities, and staff and community concerns about the RCT design and what evidence is meaningful to demonstrate intervention effectiveness. These findings highlight important epistemological, methodological, and ethical challenges that should be considered when conducting community-based RCTs and interpreting results from them. In addition, several innovations were developed to address these challenges, which may be useful for other community–academic partnerships engaged in RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study attrition is a problem in all community-based intervention studies using longitudinal research designs, but is compounded with hard to reach populations. High attrition poses threats to internal and external validity and may result in an inadequate sample size. The purpose of our study was to determine the characteristics associated with attrition. The study employed data from a cross-site evaluation of jail diversion programs. A self-report interview was conducted at baseline for 1,289 individuals. A 33% and 52% attrition rate was observed at the 6-month and 12-month follow-up interviews, respectively. The characteristics associated with loss to follow-up were male gender, part-time or full-time employment, drug offenses, jail days, baseline interview location, community supervision, and community geography. Knowing which individuals are more likely to attrit allows evaluators to develop targeted sampling strategies and participant engagement strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]