Summer Institute
   on Longitudinal Research
   August 13-15, 2008

Elizabeth Evans, M.A. and Elizabeth Hall, Ph.D., UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

PRESENTATION/HANDOUTS:
"Follow-up Strategies for Tracking and Monitoring Clients"
"Optimizing Client Follow Up"

SELECTED REFERENCES:
Cottler, L.B., Compton, W.M., Ben-Abdallah, A., Horne, M., & Claverie, D. (1996). Achieving a 96.6 percent follow-up rate in a longitudinal study of drug abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependency, 41(3), 209-217.

Hansten, M.L., Downey, L., Rosengren, D.B., & Donovan, D.M. (2000). Relationship between follow-up rates and treatment outcomes in substance abuse research: More is better but when is “enough” enough? Addiction, 95(5), 1403-1416.

Meyers, K., Webb, A., Frantz, J., & Randall, M. (2003). What does it take to retain substance-abusing adolescents in research protocols? Delineation of effort required, strategies undertaken, costs incurred, and 6-month post-treatment difference by retention difficulty. Drug & Alcohol Dependency, 69(1), 73-85.

Ribsil, K., Walton, M.A., Mowbray, C.T., Luke, D.A., Davidson, W.I., & Boot-miller, B.J. (1996). Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review and recommendations. Evaluation Review, 19, 1-25.

Robinson, K.A., Dennison, C.R., Wayman, D.M., Pronovost, P.J., & Needham, D.M. (2007). Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(8), 868-765.

Scott, C.K., Sonis, J., Creamer, M., & Dennis, M.L. (2006). Maximizing follow-up longitudinal studies of traumatized populations. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(6), 757-69.

(Back to Top)