ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
Can a 'consent to contact' community help research teams overcome barriers to recruitment? The development and impact of the 'Research for the Future' community.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using patient portals for large-scale recruitment of individuals underrepresented in biomedical research: an evaluation of engagement patterns throughout the patient portal recruitment process at a single site within the All of Us Research Program.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Participant characteristics and reasons for non-consent to health information linkage for research: experiences from the ATHENA COVID-19 study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Experience of clinical services shapes attitudes to mental health data sharing: findings from a UK-wide survey.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Would you like to be contacted about future research?BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Community midwives' and health visitors' experiences of research recruitment: a qualitative exploration using the Theoretical Domains Framework.Primary health care research & development · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruitment to health research remains a major challenge. Innovation is required to meet policy commitments to help patients take part in health research. One innovation that may help meet those policy goals is the development of 'consent to contact' systems, where people give generic consent to be contacted about research opportunities. Despite their potential, there are few empirical assessments of different ways of recruiting patients to such communities, or of the value of such communities to local research teams. MAIN TEXT: We describe the development of the 'Research for the Future'consent to contact community, outline the recruitment of patients to the community, and present data on their participation in research. DISCUSSION: Over 5000 people have been registered across 3 clinical areas. A range of recruitment strategies have been used, including direct recruitment by clinicians, postal invitations from primary care, and social media. In a 1 year period (2016-2017), the community provided over 1500 participants for a variety of research projects. Feedback from research teams has generally been positive. The 'Research for the Future'consent to contact community has proven feasible and useful for local research teams. Further evaluation is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of different recruitment strategies, explore patient and researcher experience of its advantages and disadvantages, and explore how the community can be more reflective of the wider population.
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.