ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
Engagement with health research summaries via digital communication to All of Us participants.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies to Limit Benzodiazepine Use in Anesthesia for Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Returning value to communities from the All of Us Research Program through innovative approaches for data use, analysis, dissemination, and research capacity building.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSummaries of health research can be a complementary way to return value to participants. We assess how research participants engage with summaries via email communication and how this can be improved. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe look at correlations between demographic subgroups and engagement in a longitudinal dataset of 305 626 participants (77% are classified as underrepresented in biomedical research) from the All of Us Research Program. We compare this against engagement with other program communications and use impact evaluations (N = 421 510) to measure the effect of tailoring communication by (1) eliciting content preferences, (2) Spanish focused content, (3) informational videos, and (4) article content in the email subject line.
resultsBetween March 2020 and October 2021, research summaries reached 67% of enrolled participants, outperforming other program communication (60%) and return of results (31%), which have a high uptake rate but have been extended to a subset of eligible participants. While all demographic subgroups engage with research summaries, participants with higher income, educational attainment, White, and older than 45 years open and click content most often. Surfacing article content in the email subject line and Spanish focused content had negative effects on engagement. Video and social media content and eliciting preferences led to a small directional increase in clicks. DISCUSSION: Further individualization of tailoring efforts may be needed to drive larger engagement effects (eg, delivering multiple articles in line with stated preferences, expanding preference options). Our findings are likely a conservative representation of engagement effects, given the coarseness of our click rate measure.
conclusionsHealth research summaries show promise as a way to return value to research participants, especially if individual-level results cannot be returned. Personalization of communication requires testing to determine whether efforts are having the expected effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.