Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930144›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Early experience with an opt-in research register - Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE): a multi-method evaluation of participant recruitment performance.

Wen Shi, Shobna Vasishta, Louise Dow, Daniella Cavellini, Colin Palmer, Brian McKinstry, Frank Sullivan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Wen ShiPopulation and Behavioural Science Division, School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, Fife, St Andrews, KY16 9TF, UK. ws51@st-andrews.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8912-7697
Shobna VasishtaDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Louise DowDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Daniella CavelliniDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Colin PalmerDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Brian McKinstryUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Frank SullivanPopulation and Behavioural Science Division, School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, Fife, St Andrews, KY16 9TF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruiting participants to a clinical study is a resource-intensive process with a high failure rate. The Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE) provides recruitment support service which helps researchers recruit participants by searching patients' Electronic Health Records (EHRs). The current study aims to evaluate the performance of SHARE in participant recruitment.

methodsRecruitment projects eligible for evaluation were those that were conducted for clinical trials or observational studies and finished before 2020. For analysis of recruitment data, projects with incomplete data were excluded. For each project we calculated, from SHARE records, 1) the fraction of the participants recruited through SHARE as a percentage of the number requested by researchers (percentage fulfilled), 2) the percentage of the potential candidates provided by SHARE to researchers that were actually recruited (percentage provided and recruited), 3) the percentage of the participants recruited through SHARE of all the potentially eligible candidates identified by searching registrants' EHRs (percentage identified and recruited). Research teams of the eligible projects were invited to participate in an anonymised online survey. Two metrics were derived from research teams' responses, including a) the fraction of the recruited over the study target number of participants (percentage fulfilled), and b) the percentage of the participants recruited through SHARE among the candidates received from SHARE (percentage provided and recruited).

resultsForty-four projects were eligible for inclusion. Recruitment data for 24 projects were available (20 excluded because of missingness or incompleteness). Survey invites were sent to all the eligible research teams and received 12 responses. Analysis of recruitment data shows the overall percentage fulfilled was 34.2% (interquartile 13.3-45.1%), the percentage provided and recruited 29.3% (interquartile 20.6-52.4%) and percentage identified and recruited 4.9% (interquartile 2.6-10.2%). Based on the data reported by researchers, percentage fulfilled was 31.7% (interquartile 5.8-59.6%) and percentage provided and recruited was 20.2% (interquartile 8.2-31.0%).

conclusionsSHARE may be a valuable resource for recruiting participants for some clinical studies. Potential improvements are to expand the registrant base and to incorporate more data generated during patients' different health care encounters into the candidate-searching step.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsResearch DesignHumansPatient SelectionScotlandElectronic health recordsPatient recruitment

Identifiers

PMID34930144
PMCPMC8686271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.