Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36590359›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2022

Relationship building in pediatric research recruitment: Insights from qualitative interviews with research staff.

Stephanie A Kraft, Kathryn M Porter, Tara R Sullivan, Emily E Anderson, Nanibaa' A Garrison, Laura Baker, Jodi M Smith, Elliott M Weiss

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Ethical considerations for respectful research participant payment processes.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  16. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie A KraftDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-7601
Kathryn M PorterTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tara R SullivanStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Emily E AndersonNeiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, USA.
Nanibaa' A GarrisonInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Laura BakerResearch Integration Hub, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jodi M SmithDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elliott M WeissDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Seattle Children's Hospital · USLoyola University Chicago · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical research staff play a critical role in recruiting families for pediatric research, but their views are not well described. We aimed to describe how pediatric research staff build trusting research relationships with patients and their families. Methods: We interviewed research staff at one pediatric research institution and its affiliated academic medical center between November 2020 and February 2021. Staff were eligible if they conducted participant recruitment, consent, and/or enrollment for clinical research. We developed our semi-structured interview guide based on a framework for trusting researcher-community partnerships. Results: We interviewed 28 research staff, with a median age of 28 years (range 22-50) and a median of 5 years of experience (range 1-29). Interviewees identified factors relevant to relationship building across three levels: the individual staff member, the relational interaction with the family, and the institutional or other structural backdrop. Individual factors included how staff developed recruitment skills, their perceived roles, and their personal motivations. Relational factors spanned four stages of recruitment: before the approach, forming an initial connection with a family, building the connection, and following up. Structural factors were related to access and diversity, clinical interactions, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Research staff discussed tensions and supports with various actors, challenges with the integration of research and clinical care, the importance of voluntariness for building trust, and multiple contributors to inequities in research. These findings reveal the importance of ensuring research staff have a voice in institutional policies and are supported to advocate for patients and families.

Indexed as

clinical researchclinical trialsequityinformed consentinterviewsqualitativeRecruitmentworkforce

Identifiers

PMID36590359
PMCPMC9794958
OpenAlexW4300961655

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.