Crossmark

Strategies to maximise study retention and limit attrition bias in a prospective cohort study of men reporting a history of injecting drug use released from prison: the prison and transition health study

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01380-0

Published Online: 2021-09-12

Published Print: 2021-12

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Stewart, Ashleigh Cara

Cossar, Reece

Walker, Shelley

Wilkinson, Anna Lee

Quinn, Brendan

Dietze, Paul

Winter, Rebecca

Kirwan, Amy

Curtis, Michael

Ogloff, James R. P.

Kinner, Stuart

Aitken, Campbell

Butler, Tony

Woods, Emma

Stoové, Mark
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2021-09-12

Version of Record valid from 2021-09-12
More Information

Article History

Received: 9 May 2021

Accepted: 31 August 2021

First Online: 12 September 2021

Declarations

:

: The PATH study was approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (79/12) and the Victorian Government Department of Justice and Community Safety Human Research Ethics Committee (CF/14/10169). All participants completed informed written consent to participant in the study. The study was undertaken in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.

: Not applicable.

: MS has received investigator-initiated funding from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and Bristol Myers Squibb for research unrelated to this work. PD has received investigator-driven funding from Gilead Sciences for work related to hepatitis C treatment and an untied educational grant from Indivior for work related to the introduction of buprenorphine/naloxone into Australia. He has also served as an unpaid member of an Advisory Board for an intranasal naloxone product. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below