Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34741513›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Recruitment in a research study via chatbot versus telephone outreach: a randomized trial at a minority-serving institution.

Yoo Jin Kim, Julie A DeLisa, Yu-Che Chung, Nancy L Shapiro, Subhash K Kolar Rajanna, Edward Barbour, Jeffrey A Loeb, Justin Turner, Susan Daley, John Skowlund and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

11 authors.

Yoo Jin KimBreathe Chicago Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3499-3990
Julie A DeLisaBreathe Chicago Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Yu-Che ChungBreathe Chicago Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Nancy L ShapiroDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Subhash K Kolar RajannaCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Edward BarbourCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jeffrey A LoebCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Justin TurnerQliqSOFT, Inc., Dallas, Texas, USA.
Susan DaleyQliqSOFT, Inc., Dallas, Texas, USA.
John SkowlundQliqSOFT, Inc., Dallas, Texas, USA.
Jerry A KrishnanBreathe Chicago Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5525-4778

Funding

Strengthening Stakeholder Engagement in Human Research Protections.UL1TR002003 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI KARNIK, NIRANJAN SUBHASH, MERMELSTEIN, ROBIN J. · 2016 to 2024
$33.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002003NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chatbots are software applications to simulate a conversation with a person. The effectiveness of chatbots in facilitating the recruitment of study participants in research, specifically among racial and ethnic minorities, is unknown. The objective of this study is to compare a chatbot versus telephone-based recruitment in enrolling research participants from a predominantly minority patient population at an urban institution. We randomly allocated adults to receive either chatbot or telephone-based outreach regarding a study about vaccine hesitancy. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who provided consent to participate in the study. In 935 participants, the proportion who answered contact attempts was significantly lower in the chatbot versus telephone group (absolute difference -21.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -27.0%, -16.5%; P < 0.001). The consent rate was also significantly lower in the chatbot group (absolute difference -3.4%; 95% CI -5.7%, -1.1%; P = 0.004). However, among participants who answered a contact attempt, the difference in consent rates was not significant. In conclusion, the consent rate was lower with chatbot compared to telephone-based outreach. The difference in consent rates was due to a lower proportion of participants in the chatbot group who answered a contact attempt.

Indexed as

SoftwareTelephoneAdultCommunicationHealth FacilitiesHumansMinority GroupsChatbotelectronic consentrecruitmenttelephone outreach

Identifiers

PMID34741513
PMCPMC8714282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.