Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25425718›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2014

Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices.

Paula M Frew, Diane S Saint-Victor, Margaret Brewinski Isaacs, Sonnie Kim, Geeta K Swamy, Jeanne S Sheffield, Kathryn M Edwards, Tonya Villafana, Ouda Kamagate, Kevin Ault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Feasibility Study ofNutrients · 2023
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. How to Efficiently Recruit Participants in a Perinatal Cohort Study: CAN-B Cohort Strategies/Lessons Learned.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Paula M FrewEmory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Diane S Saint-VictorEmory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases.
Margaret Brewinski IsaacsNIH Office of Research on Women's Health.
Sonnie KimNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Geeta K SwamyDuke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Jeanne S SheffieldUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Kathryn M EdwardsVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tonya VillafanaMedImmune, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Ouda KamagateEmory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases.
Kevin AultDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnant women are a vulnerable group who are needed in clinical research studies to advance prevention and treatment options for this population. Yet, pregnant women remain underrepresented in clinical research. Through the lens of the socioecological model, we highlight reported barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention of pregnant women in studies that sought their participation. We trace historical, policy-based reasons for the exclusion of pregnant women in clinical studies to present-day rationale for inclusion of this group. The findings highlight why it has been difficult to recruit and retain this population over time. A body of literature suggests that integrative sampling and recruitment methods that leverage the influence and reach of prenatal providers will overcome recruitment challenges. We argue that these strategies, in combination with building strong engagement with existing community-based organizations, will enable teams to more effectively promote and retain pregnant women in future longitudinal cohort studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionPregnant PeopleAdultBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansPregnancyclinical research trialspregnant womenrecruitment; retentionvulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID25425718
PMCPMC4303058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.