Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37125060›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Describing current use, barriers, and facilitators of patient portal messaging for research recruitment: Perspectives from study teams and patients at one institution.

Hailey N Miller, Sierra Lindo, Laura J Fish, Jamie Roberts, John Stover, Earl H Schwark, Nicholas Eberlein, Dalia Mack, Margaret Falkovic, Christina Makarushka and 1 more

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Description and toolkit for a research participant referral service.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Hailey N MillerSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6045-6542
Sierra LindoDuke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Recruitment Innovation Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Laura J FishDuke Cancer Institute, Behavioral Health and Survey Research Core, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jamie RobertsDuke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
John StoverDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Earl H SchwarkDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Nicholas EberleinDuke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Recruitment Innovation Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Dalia MackDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Margaret FalkovicDuke Cancer Institute, Behavioral Health and Survey Research Core, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Christina MakarushkaDuke Cancer Institute, Behavioral Health and Survey Research Core, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ranee ChatterjeeDuke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Recruitment Innovation Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4294-8081

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DONNA NIEDZWIECKI · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
Support for QA/QC for Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002553 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S, MCNAMARA, JAMES O. · 2018 to 2023
$58.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002553NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The electronic health record (EHR) and patient portal are used increasingly for clinical research, including patient portal recruitment messaging (PPRM). Use of PPRM has grown rapidly; however, best practices are still developing. In this study, we examined the use of PPRM at our institution and conducted qualitative interviews among study teams and patients to understand experiences and preferences for PPRM. Methods: We identified study teams that sent PPRMs and patients that received PPRMs in a 60-day period. We characterized these studies and patients, in addition to the patients' interactions with the PPRMs (e.g., viewed, responded). From these groups, we recruited study team members and patients for semi-structured interviews. A pragmatic qualitative inquiry framework was used by interviewers. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis exploratory approach. Results: Across ten studies, 35,037 PPRMs were sent, 33% were viewed, and 17% were responded to. Interaction rates varied across demographic groups. Six study team members completed interviews and described PPRM as an efficient and helpful recruitment method. Twenty-eight patients completed interviews. They were supportive of receiving PPRMs, particularly when the PPRM was relevant to their health. Patients indicated that providing more information in the PPRM would be helpful, in addition to options to set personalized preferences. Conclusions: PPRM is an efficient recruitment method for study teams and is acceptable to patients. Engagement with PPRMs varies across demographic groups, which should be considered during recruitment planning. Additional research is needed to evaluate and implement recommended changes by study teams and patients.

Indexed as

electronic health recordmixed methodspatient portalpatient portal messagingqualitative interviewsRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID37125060
PMCPMC10130833

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.