Table 3.

Differences in screening, eligibility, and enrollment rates^a by recruitment strategies and racial/ethnic groups^b.

Recruitment Strategies	African American N (%)	Hispanic/Latino N (%)	White N (%)	P-value
Screening
All	N=397	N=329	N=96
Proactive Recruitment	23 (63.9)	6 (16.7)	7 (19.4)	0.0005
Reactive Recruitment
Word-of-Mouth	194 (70.3)	63 (22.8)	19 (6.9)	<0.0001
Newspaper	23 (21.5)	56 (52.3)	28 (26.2)	0.0001
Flyer	100 (42.2)	118 (49.8)	19 (8.0)	<0.0001
Community Partner	25 (53.2)	17 (36.2)	5 (10.6)	0.0016
Online	32 (28.6)	64 (57.1)	16 (14.3)	<0.0001
Radio & Television	---	5 (71.4)	2 (28.6)	---
Eligibility
All	N=203	N=217	N=67
Proactive Recruitment	12 (75.0)	2 (12.5)	2 (12.5)	0.0019
Reactive Recruitment
Word-of-Mouth	102 (66.2)	38 (24.7)	14 (9.1)	<0.0001
Newspaper	10 (13.0)	47 (61.0)	20 (26.0)	<0.0001
Flyer	43 (34.4)	69 (55.2)	13 (10.4)	<0.0001
Community Partner	14 (53.8)	8 (30.8)	4 (15.4)	0.0538
Online	22 (26.5)	49 (59.0)	12 (14.5)	<0.0001
Radio & Television	---	4 (66.7)	2 (33.3)	---
Enrollment
All	N=98	N=73	N=23
Proactive Recruitment	9 (75.0)	2 (16.7)	1 (8.3)	.0086
Reactive Recruitment
Word-of-Mouth	48 (73.9)	10 (15.4)	7 (10.8)	<0.0001
Newspaper	1 (4.8)	15 (71.4)	5 (23.8)	0.0006
Flyer	26 (49.1)	23 (43.4)	4 (7.6)	0.0003
Community Partner	8 (50.0)	6 (37.5)	2 (12.5)	0.1737
Online	6 (24.0)	15 (60.0)	4 (16.0)	0.0162
Radio & Television	---	2 (100.0)	---	---

^aPairwise difference between racial/ethnic groups

^bWe included in the analysis only those who were reached out using nontargeted strategies.

Participants who were enrolled by the Hispanic/Latino targeted recruitment strategies were excluded from this analysis (n=15).

Bolded values indicate statistically significant findings at p<.05.