Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37008607›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Enhancing study recruitment through implementation of an opt-out, cold contact process with consideration for autonomy, beneficence and justice.

Tara Pittman, Leslie Bell, Stedman Jones, Kimberly Brown, Katie Kirchoff, Patrick Flume

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Tara PittmanSouth Carolina Clinical & Translational Research (SCTR) Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4924-9993
Leslie BellSouth Carolina Clinical & Translational Research (SCTR) Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Stedman JonesSouth Carolina Clinical & Translational Research (SCTR) Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1318-000X
Kimberly BrownSouth Carolina Clinical & Translational Research (SCTR) Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8904-1647
Katie KirchoffBiomedical Informatics Center (BMIC), South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research (SCTR) Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9552-7176
Patrick FlumeDepartment of Medicine and Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1560-6879

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential utilization of a cold-contact approach to research recruitment, where members of the research team are unknown to the patient, has grown with the expanded use of electronic health records (EHRs) and affiliated patient portals. Institutions that permit this strategy vary in their implementation and management of it but tend to lean towards more conservative approaches. This process paper describes the Medical University of South Carolina's transition to an opt-out model of "cold-contact" recruitment (known as patient outreach recruitment or POR), wherein patients can be contacted so long as they do not express an unwillingness to receive such communication. The work highlights the benefits of this model by explaining how it, in many ways, supports and protects autonomy, beneficence, and justice for patients. The paper then describes the process of standing up the recruitment strategy, communicating the change to patients and the community, and documenting study team contact and patient research preference. Data supporting increased access to potentially eligible patients of greater diversity as well as initial researcher feedback on perceived success of POR is also shared. The paper ends with a discussion of next steps to enhance the POR process via more detailed data collection and reengagement with community stakeholders.

Indexed as

Clinical trial recruitmentcold callingcold contactcontact preferenceelectronic health recordopt-outpatient engagementpatient portalrecruitment strategyresearch recruitment

Identifiers

PMID37008607
PMCPMC10052414

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.