AbstractBackgroundExercise and Intensive Vascular Risk Reduction in Preventing Dementia (rrAD Study) was a NIH‐funded multisite, clinical trial. The rrAD Study assesses the effects of aerobic exercise training and intensive pharmacological reduction of vascular risk factors on cognitive performance in older adults at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The enrollment goal was 640 participants across the span of two years. We report herein our recruitment and enrollment results of the rrAD Study.MethodThe major inclusion criteria were older adults, age 60‐85, who had family history (FH) of dementia or subjective memory complaints, hypertension, and a sedentary lifestyle. Individuals with dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases, or unstable medical conditions were excluded (NCT02913664). 3,291 potential participants were recruited and 2,747 were phone screened to participate in the rrAD Study. 513 cognitively normal older adults, aged 60 to 85 years with hypertension and increased risk for AD were randomized.ResultThe rrAD Study had a 15.5% recruitment yield of total phone screened individuals to randomization. E‐mail brought in the largest number of phone screen contacts and was the overall most cited recruitment source (20.9%, n = 574, Figure 1), followed by interviews/editorials (18.7%, n = 515), other/unknown source (17.9%, n = 492), and broadcast advertising (11.8%, n = 325). E‐mail and interview/editorials led to greatest number of consented and randomized participants. However, the recruitment sources that were more likely to lead to consent/participation were, professional referral (i.e. physician, 57.1% yield), social media (49.2% yield), and mail/phone from site (45.2% yield).ConclusionFrom this outreach, the utilization of multiple recruitment sources prove to be a dominant factor to meet recruitment and enrollment goals. E‐mail and interview/editorials demonstrate to be the most effective recruitment sources that led to the greatest number of phone screens, consents, and randomizations. In future studies, we might limit the broadcast advertisement effort since it did not lead to a high volume of consents and randomization; this could be due to the limited amount of study information stated on a 60‐second radio advertisement. Whereas, e‐mail and interview/editorials may produce more qualified participants since these sources can provide a wide scope and detailed information about the study.