{"id":1446,"date":"2012-04-15T16:08:24","date_gmt":"2012-04-15T22:08:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/blog\/?page_id=1446"},"modified":"2012-05-28T15:18:29","modified_gmt":"2012-05-28T21:18:29","slug":"barriers-and-best-practices-description-of-table-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/?page_id=1446","title":{"rendered":"Barriers and Best Practices description of table 2"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1>Barriers and Best Practices<\/h1>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #888888;\">description of table 2<\/span><\/h5>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial;\">Relative Effectiveness of Recruitment Techniques. Note: Please consider study cohort differences when comparing strategies. Target audience for methods 1 &amp; 2 was CIL consumers. Target audience for methods 3, 4 &amp; 5 was the general population of people with disabilities. Target audience for methods 6 &amp; 7 was Medicaid beneficiaries with physical disabilities. Method 1: 639 letters were sent to CIL consumers. 55 were recruited (8.6%). Method 2: CIL staff spoke to 164 CIL consumers. 38 were recruited (23.2%). Method 3: We made 374 media contacts. 25 people were recruited (6.7%). Method 4: We provided 268 medical provider packets. Two people were recruited (0.7%). Method 5: We posted 250 flyers posted in the community. Six people were recruited (2.4%). Method 6: We sent the newsletter series to 119 people and nine were recruited (7.6%). Method 7: Motivational Interviews were conducted with 123 people and 24 were recruited (22.9%).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial;\"><a title=\"Barriers and Best Practices:  Marketing Health Promotion for People with Disabilities\" href=\"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/blog\/?page_id=1442#T2\">Return to text<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Barriers and Best Practices description of table 2 Relative Effectiveness of Recruitment Techniques. Note: Please consider study cohort differences when comparing strategies. Target audience for methods 1 &amp; 2 was CIL consumers. Target audience for methods 3, 4 &amp; 5 was the general population of people with disabilities. Target audience for methods 6 &amp; 7 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"parent":1442,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-1446","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1446\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mtdh.ruralinstitute.umt.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}