Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29707259›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2017

Effectiveness and cost of recruiting healthy volunteers for clinical research studies using an electronic patient portal: A randomized study.

Mary H Samuels, Robert Schuff, Peter Beninato, Adriel Gorsuch, James Dursch, Sarah Egan, Bridget Adams, Kate F Hollis, Rachel Navarro, Timothy E Burdick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementation ofJournal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  7. Embedding research study recruitment within the patient portal preCheck-in.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Selecting EHR-driven recruitment strategies: An evidence-based decision guide.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Primary care perspectives on implementation of clinical trial recruitment.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Mary H SamuelsOregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Robert SchuffOregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Peter BeninatoInformation Technology Group, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Adriel GorsuchOffice of the Chief Privacy Officer, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
James DurschUniversity Libraries, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
Sarah EganOregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Bridget AdamsOregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Kate F HollisDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Rachel NavarroInformation Technology Group, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Timothy E BurdickDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is not clear how to effectively recruit healthy research volunteers.

methodsWe developed an electronic health record (EHR)-based algorithm to identify healthy subjects, who were randomly assigned to receive an invitation to join a research registry via the EHR's patient portal, letters, or phone calls. A follow-up survey assessed contact preferences.

resultsThe EHR algorithm accurately identified 858 healthy subjects. Recruitment rates were low, but occurred more quickly via the EHR patient portal than letters or phone calls (2.7 vs. 19.3 or 10.4 d). Effort and costs per enrolled subject were lower for the EHR patient portal (3.0 vs. 17.3 or 13.6 h, $113 vs. $559 or $435). Most healthy subjects indicated a preference for contact via electronic methods.

conclusionsHealthy subjects can be accurately identified from EHR data, and it is faster and more cost-effective to recruit healthy research volunteers using an EHR patient portal.

Indexed as

clinical researchelectronic health recordshealthy volunteersPatient selectionrecruitment

Identifiers

PMID29707259
PMCPMC5916095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.