ArticleHospital pediatrics2014
Increasing recruitment rates in an inpatient clinical research study using quality improvement methods.
Article in Hospital pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing clinical recruitment rate to a single-site observational study: a quality improvement study.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Ageism and Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Leveraging the Outpatient Pharmacy to Reduce Medication Waste in Pediatric Asthma Hospitalizations.Journal of hospital medicine · 2020Article
- Optimizing a Nurse-led Transitional Home Visit Program in Preparation for a Randomized Control Trial.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOne important benefit of successful patient recruitment is increased generalizability of findings. We sought to optimize enrollment of children admitted with asthma as part of a population-based, prospective, observational cohort study with the goal of enrolling at least 60% of all eligible and staffed patients.
methodsQuality improvement methods were used to improve cohort recruitment. Weekly meetings with study staff and study leadership were held to plan and discuss how to maximize recruitment rates. Significant initial variability in recruitment success prompted the team to use small-scale tests of change to increase recruitment numbers. A number of tests were trialed, focusing primarily on reducing patient refusals and improving recruitment process efficiency. Recruitment rates were calculated by dividing eligible by enrolled patients and displayed using annotated Shewhart control charts. Control charts were used to illustrate week-to-week variability while also enabling differentiation of common-cause and special-cause variation.
resultsThe study enrolled 774 patients, representing 54% of all eligible and 59% of those eligible for whom staff were available to enroll. Our mean weekly recruitment rate increased from 55% during the first 3 months of the study to a statistically significant sustained rate of 61%. This was sustained given numerous obstacles, such as departing and hiring of staff and adding a second recruitment location.
conclusionsImplementing quality improvement methods within a larger research study led to an increase in the rate of recruitment as well as the stability in recruitment rates from week-to-week.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.