ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
Patient perspectives on use of electronic health records for research recruitment.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recruitment and enrollment of participants in an online diabetes self-management intervention in a virtual environment.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- Improving Recruitment Into Research Studies via Electronically Collected Patient-Entered Data: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary Care in a Public University Family Medicine Group in Québec (Canada): Data on Patients' Follow-Up and Cardiometabolic Risk Management.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Systematic Identification of Caregivers of Patients Living With Dementia in the Electronic Health Record: Known Contacts and Natural Language Processing Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Citizen Views on an Opt-Out Approach to National Electronic Health Records in Germany: A Small-Scale Qualitative Study.International journal of public health · 2024Article
- Implementation ofJournal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- US Residents' Preferences for Sharing of Electronic Health Record and Genetic Information: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023Article
- Research recruitment through the patient portal: perspectives of community focus groups in Seattle and Atlanta.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Describing current use, barriers, and facilitators of patient portal messaging for research recruitment: Perspectives from study teams and patients at one institution.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Identifying Family and Unpaid Caregivers in Electronic Health Records: Descriptive Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Supporting research, protecting data: one institution's approach to clinical data warehouse governance.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Selecting EHR-driven recruitment strategies: An evidence-based decision guide.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Strategies and lessons learned from a longitudinal study to maximize recruitment in the midst of a global pandemic.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2022Article
- EHR phenotyping for research recruitment: Researcher, IRB, and physician perspectives on approaches to contacting patients.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Embedding research recruitment in a community resource e-prescribing system: lessons from an implementation study on Chicago's South Side.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.
methodsWe conducted 15 focus groups (n = 110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.
resultsFor initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.
conclusionsExternal validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.
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.