Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Study Buddy Intervention Fails to Improve Retention in Rural PWUD Longitudinal ResearchStudy buddy approach did not improve retention in rural drug use research

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note: Study buddy intervention did not improve retention in rural PWUD research versus standard reminders.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether a participant-referred 'study buddy' intervention could improve retention compared to standard approaches in longitudinal research with rural people who use drugs (PWUD). The study enrolled 739 adults from rural counties in Ohio, Oregon, and Kentucky who used opioids or injected drugs in the past 30 days. Participants were randomized to receive either the standard retention approach (appointment reminders and contact updates by staff) or the standard approach plus the study buddy intervention, where participants were asked to recruit a buddy who would encourage follow-up attendance.

The primary outcome was retention at 12 months. The intervention did not increase retention, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.47). The secondary outcome of retention at 6 months also showed no benefit (AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69-1.34). Absolute retention numbers were not reported for the comparison, but overall study retention was 50.3% at 6 months and 46.1% at 12 months. A key implementation issue was that only 23.5% of intervention participants successfully recruited a study buddy.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported. The study's limitations include the low uptake of the buddy intervention itself, which limits conclusions about its potential efficacy if fully implemented. Funding sources and conflicts of interest were not reported. For practice, this trial provides evidence that this specific, low-uptake peer-support model did not overcome retention barriers in this challenging research population. Standard reminder-based approaches and the buddy intervention yielded similar results.

Researchers wanted to find better ways to keep rural people who use drugs participating in long-term health studies. They tested whether asking participants to recruit a friend or family member as a 'study buddy' would help. The buddy was supposed to encourage the participant to attend follow-up appointments. This was compared against standard methods like appointment reminders from study staff.

The study included 739 adults from rural areas in Ohio, Oregon, and Kentucky who used opioids or injected drugs. About half were women, most were White, and many were unstably housed. Participants were randomly assigned to either try the study buddy approach or just receive standard reminders.

After 12 months, the study buddy method did not keep more people in the research than standard reminders. The numbers showed no meaningful difference. Only about one in four people in the buddy group actually recruited someone. Overall, keeping people in the study was challenging, with less than half still participating after a year.

This research shows that simply asking participants to find a buddy wasn't enough to solve the retention problem in this setting. The idea might need to be adjusted or combined with other supports. For now, standard reminder systems remain the tested approach for similar studies.

What this means for you:
Asking participants to recruit a study buddy did not help keep more people in this long-term research.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
AIMS: To test the efficacy of a participant-referred "study buddy" intervention compared with standard retention strategies in retaining rural people who use drugs (PWUD) in longitudinal research. DESIGN: Multi-site, two-arm, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Rural counties in Ohio, Oregon, and Kentucky, USA. PARTICIPANTS: People enrolled in the Peer-based Retention Of people who Use Drugs in Rural Research (PROUD-R) study who were 18 years or older, resided in the study area, and used opioids or injected any drug to get high in the past 30 days between August 2020 and August 2022. Participants (n = 739) were 42% female, mostly White (89%) and non-Hispanic (96%), unstably housed (57%), and reported lifetime injection drug use (93%). The most common drugs of choice were methamphetamine (42%) and heroin (38%). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were allocated (1:1, stratified by site), to: [1] standard retention approach involving appointment reminders and contact information updates by study staff (n = 365), or [2] the intervention arm, receiving the standard retention approach and asked to recruit a "study buddy" (n = 374). Study buddies were invited to view a training video and instructed to encourage their intervention participant to attend follow-up appointments. MEASUREMENTS: Intervention, control, and study buddy participants completed interviewer-administered surveys at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Outcomes included retention at 12 months (primary) and 6 months (secondary). FINDINGS: Retention was 50.3% at 6 months and 46.1% at 12 months. Only 23.5% of intervention participants recruited a study buddy. In intent-to-treat analyses, the intervention did not increase retention at 12 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.47) or 6 (AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69-1.34) months. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of self-identified "study buddies" did not appear to statistically significantly improve retention of rural people who use drugs in this longitudinal study at 6- and 12-month follow-up relative to standard retention approaches.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.