Table 3.
Association between recruitment strategy and response rate: comparing exposed and non-exposed districts, to different strategies
| Number of districts (N) | Response rate (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed | Non-exposed | Exposed | Non-exposed | |
| Indirect recruitment strategy | ||||
| Announcement letter | 14 | 5 | 25.5 | 19.8 |
| Information meeting | 7 | 12 | 24.1 | 24.1 |
| Local media | 6 | 13 | 23.0 | 24.6 |
| Social media | 10 | 9 | 20.6 | 28.5 |
| Direct recruitment strategy | ||||
| Door-to-door collection | 5 | 14 | 31.8 | 21.2 |
| Involvement of community organizations | 3 | 16 | 21.8 | 24.5 |
| Other strategies | ||||
| “Active” key informantsa | 9 | 10 | 30.0 | 18.1 |
Response rates with more than 5 % increase between exposed and non-exposed communities are presented in italics
aKey informants were considered to be ‘active’ if they made major effort during the recruitment process (see text for the details)