Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21900440›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

Using patient monetary incentives and electronically derived patient lists to recruit patients to a clinical trial.

Mack T Ruffin, Donald E Nease

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Using e-technologies in clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mack T RuffinDepartment of Family Medicine, The University of Michigan, USA. mruffin@umich.edu
Donald E Nease

Funding

CANCER CHEMOPREVENTION &MENTORING CLINICAL RESEARCHERSK24CA080846 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI RUFFIN, MACK T. · 1999 to 2010
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA080846PHS HHS UM#U36/CCU319276 MM-0789
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo report using electronic medical record (EMR) data to identify patients eligible for a clinical trial and the impact of providing an honorarium and deadline on accrual.

methodsSix practices using a common EMR participated in a cluster-randomized trial testing a self-administered, web-based familial risk assessment tool. EMR-derived lists of eligible patients were made available for provider review. An honorarium and deadline for responding in the patient recruitment letter were implemented in the last half of the recruitment process.

resultsWe identified 22,376 potentially eligible patients. Lists not returned by providers accounted for 9840 (44%) patients. We mailed invitations to 11,956 patients; 2398 (20%) requested more information and a consent document, 1489 (12.5%) consented to participate, and 1305 (11%) completed the baseline data collection. Patients receiving the additional $2 and a deadline compared with those receiving the personal invitation alone had significantly higher interest in participating (25% vs. 17%, P = .0001) but were less likely to complete baseline data collection (57% vs. 65% P = .01). Once consented, 85% completed the study with no significant difference by recruitment approach.

conclusionsUsing EMR data reduces the burden to identify potentially eligible patients. However, some providers still did not review and return the lists. Adding a $2 incentive and deadline for responding did not improve the rate of eligible patients consenting and completing the study. Other patient recruitment methods to get better response by providers and population from primary care offices must be explored.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicElectronic Health RecordsPatient SelectionAdultAgedConsent FormsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivation

Identifiers

PMID21900440
PMCPMC4224283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.