ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020
EHR phenotyping for research recruitment: Researcher, IRB, and physician perspectives on approaches to contacting patients.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selecting EHR-driven recruitment strategies: An evidence-based decision guide.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Application of Innovative Subject Recruitment System for Batch Enrollment: A Pilot Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
introductionFailure to achieve accrual goals is a common problem in health-related research. Electronic health records represent a promising resource, offering the ability to identify a precisely defined cohort of patients who meet inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, challenges associated with the recruitment process remain and institutional policies vary.
methodsWe interviewed researchers, institutional review board chairs, and primary care physicians in North Carolina and Tennessee. Questions focused on strategies for initiating contact with potentially eligible patients, as well as recruitment letters asking recipients to opt in versus opt out of further communication.
resultsWhen we asked about initiating contact with prospective participants, qualitative themes included trust, credibility, and established relationships; research efficiency and validity; privacy and autonomy; the intersection between research and clinical care; and disruption to physician-researcher and physician-patient relationships. All interviewees said it was acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians; most said it was acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly. Over half chose contact through physicians as more appropriate. Regarding recruitment letters, qualitative themes included the quality of the participant pool; privacy and control; research efficiency and representativeness; and patients' opportunity to make their own decisions. All interviewees said asking recipients to opt in to further communication was acceptable; nearly all said opt out was acceptable. Similar proportions chose each approach as more appropriate.
conclusionsComparing these results to our previous research with patients reveals potential differences in stakeholder perspectives. We offer suggestions for developing balanced approaches that respect patients and facilitate the advancement of science.
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.