Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33382929›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2021

Outreach to new mothers through direct mail and email: recruitment in the Early Check research study.

Ryan S Paquin, Megan A Lewis, Blake A Harper, Rebecca R Moultrie, Angela Gwaltney, Lisa M Gehtland, Holly L Peay, Martin Duparc, Melissa Raspa, Anne C Wheeler and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A systematic framework for selecting gene-condition pairs for inclusion in newborn sequencing panels: Early Check implementation.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors.

Ryan S PaquinRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Megan A LewisRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Blake A HarperRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Rebecca R MoultrieRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Angela GwaltneyRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Lisa M GehtlandRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Holly L PeayRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Martin DuparcRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Melissa RaspaRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Anne C WheelerRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Cynthia M PowellUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Nancy M P KingWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Scott M ShoneNorth Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Donald B BaileyRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UL1TR001111 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$43.9M
Preclinical CoreP50HD103573 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GABRIEL S DICHTER · 2020 to 2026
$9.7M
Early Check: A Collaborative Innovation to Facilitate Pre-Symptomatic Clinical Trials in NewbornsU01TR001792 · NCATS · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI BAILEY, DONALD B, COTTEN, CHARLES MICHAEL · 2016 to 2020
$7.8M
NCATS NIH HHS U01 TR001792NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001111NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD103573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meeting recruitment targets for clinical trials and health research studies is a notable challenge. Unsuccessful efforts to recruit participants from traditionally underserved populations can limit who benefits from scientific discovery, thus perpetuating inequities in health outcomes and access to care. In this study, we evaluated direct mail and email outreach campaigns designed to recruit women who gave birth in North Carolina for a statewide research study offering expanded newborn screening for a panel of rare health conditions. Of the 54,887 women who gave birth in North Carolina from September 28, 2018, through March 19, 2019, and were eligible to be included on the study's contact lists, we had access to a mailing address for 97.9% and an email address for 6.3%. Rural women were less likely to have sufficient contact information available, but this amounted to less than a one percentage point difference by urbanicity. Native American women were less likely to have an email address on record; however, we did not find a similar disparity when recruitment using direct-mail letters and postcards was concerned. Although we sent letters and emails in roughly equal proportion by urbanicity and race/ethnicity, we found significant differences in enrollment across demographic subgroups. Controlling for race/ethnicity and urbanicity, we found that direct-mail letters and emails were effective recruitment methods. The enrollment rate among women who were sent a recruitment letter was 4.1%, and this rate increased to 5.0% among women who were also sent an email invitation. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Under-representation by traditionally underserved populations in clinical trials and health research is a challenge that may in part reflect inequitable opportunities to participate. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? Are direct-mail and email outreach strategies effective for reaching and recruiting women from traditionally underserved and rural populations to participate in large-scale, population-based research? WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Despite sending recruitment letters and email invitations in roughly equal proportion by urbanicity and race/ethnicity, women living in rural areas were less likely to enroll (2.8%) than women from urban areas (4.2%). Additionally, enrollment rates decreased as the probability that women were members of a racial or ethnic minority group increased. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Results from this study might encourage researchers to take a holistic and participant-centered view of barriers to study enrollment that may disproportionately affect underserved communities, including differences in willingness to participate, trust, and access to resources needed for uptake.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionClinical Trials as TopicElectronic MailFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMothersNeonatal ScreeningNorth CarolinaPostal ServiceRural PopulationVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID33382929
PMCPMC8212727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.