Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40321970›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025

Novel approaches to recruiting clinical sites for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Insights from the AIM-back trial.

Tyler L Cope, Steven Z George, S Nicole Hastings, Courtni France, Christa Tumminello, Cynthia J Coffman, Ashley Choate, Trevor A Lentz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tyler L CopeDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Steven Z GeorgeDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
S Nicole HastingsDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Courtni FranceCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Christa TumminelloCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Cynthia J CoffmanCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Ashley ChoateCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Trevor A LentzDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Resource Core 3 - Metabolomics CoreP30AG028716 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CATHLEEN S COLON-EMERIC, Susan Nicole Hastings · 2006 to 2026
$24.6M
Pain Management Collaboratory Coordinating Center (PMC3)U24AT009769 · NCCIH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM C BECKER, Alicia Heapy · 2017 to 2026
$16.4M
Improving Veteran Access To Integrated Management of Chronic Back PainUG3AT009790 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI GEORGE, STEVEN Z, HASTINGS, SUSAN NICOLE · 2017 to 2019
$1.9M
NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT009769NCCIH NIH HHS UG3 AT009790NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028716
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40321970
PMCPMC12049813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.