ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Novel approaches to recruiting clinical sites for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Insights from the AIM-back trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) assess interventions in real-world settings. Best practices for recruiting clinical sites for ePCTs are unknown, especially for sites that aren't known to the study team or familiar with clinical research. We describe the site recruitment process for AIM-Back, an ePCT of two nonpharmacologic pathways for low back pain within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Methods: During the planning phase of the AIM-Back trial, we aimed to recruit 18-20 sites. Eligible sites required provider capacity, administrative support, and geographic separation to avoid contamination. Our three-step approach involved: (1) lead (VA personnel) identification through existing VA contacts, data repositories of VA clinicians, and promotional outreach at events and listservs; (2) lead engagement via tailored communications emphasizing participation benefits; and (3) virtual meetings with administrators and clinicians. Results: We identified 184 leads across 53 VA healthcare systems. Leads from 40 systems responded to outreach, and recruitment meetings were conducted with 23 systems involving primary care, physical therapy, research staff, and leadership. We met our recruitment goal, securing participation agreements from 19 sites, with a median timeline from outreach to participation agreement of 3.7 months. Common reasons for non-participation included infrastructure and resource constraints, resistance to new clinical programs, and competing programs. Conclusion: AIM-Back's recruitment highlights ePCT site recruitment complexities for trials engaging new clinical research sites. Our innovative three-step recruitment approach provides an example for similarly designed trials. Future ePCTs should consider comprehensive recruitment strategies to ensure clinician buy-in, study feasibility, and broaden existing networks for completing ePCTs.
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.