Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30808279›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Patient perspectives on use of electronic health records for research recruitment.

Laura M Beskow, Kathleen M Brelsford, Catherine M Hammack

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementation ofJournal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  7. 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 · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Supporting research, protecting data: one institution's approach to clinical data warehouse governance.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    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
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura M BeskowCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA. laura.m.beskow@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9314-1915
Kathleen M BrelsfordCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Catherine M HammackCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

Ethical Approaches to Research Use of Clinical Records and DataR01LM012178 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BESKOW, LAURA M. · 2014 to 2016
$1.2M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012178
6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic Health RecordsPatient SelectionResearch DesignAdolescentAdultBiomedical ResearchCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesElectronic health recordsPatient perspectivesPhysician-patient relationshipResearch ethicsResearch subject recruitmentTrust

Identifiers

PMID30808279
PMCPMC6390331
OpenAlexW2942105630

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.