ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2020
Audience segmentation as a strategy for enhancing the use of research registries for recruiting patients into clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international study to explore the feasibility of collecting standardised outcome data for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: recommendations for an international clinical research registry.British journal of pain · 2023Article
- A Web-Based Intervention to Increase Smokers' Intentions to Participate in a Cessation Study Offered at the Point of Lung Screening: Factorial Randomized Trial.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Public attitudes toward an authorization for contact program for clinical research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Research with older people in a world with COVID-19: identification of current and future priorities, challenges and opportunities.Age and ageing · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth research registries have great potential to increase awareness of research opportunities among diverse patient populations and reduce disparities in clinical trial accrual. However, little research has focused on patients' intentions to participate in clinical trials once they are enrolled in the registry and their intentions to remain in the registry over time.
methodsPatients (
resultsHealth research registry knowledge, perceived values, self-efficacy, trust, having chronic health concerns, and consent recall were positively correlated with intentions to remain enrolled in the research registry and participate in future clinical trials. Health research registry consent recall had significant positive associations with registry knowledge, perceived values, trust, registry retention, and participating in future trials.
conclusionThe process of consenting patients to the health research registry is important for recruitment, registry retention, and participation in future clinical trials. We identified key points of emphasis to expand participation in research registries as a strategy to increase clinical trial enrollment, such as deploying precision messages and tailored interventions.
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.