ArticlePloS one2025
Study team perspectives on a multisite randomized clinical trial with underserved rural populations: A mixed methods feasibility analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although the literature on clinical trial methodology is quite robust, the voices of study staff as key influencers of this process are lacking, particularly for rural and underserved pediatric clinical trials. Using qualitative and quantitative (i.e., survey) methodology, the purpose of the current study was to gather information from study investigators and staff who served on one of the initial multi-state trials in the IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN) regarding barriers and facilitators of conducting this rural clinical trial. Quantitative analysis indicated most study investigators and staff who responded (55%) were neutral about the various recruitment methods. Qualitative analyses identified 6 relevant themes: 1) Participant families felt overwhelmed with study procedures, 2) Incentives are important and should be given in a timely fashion to child as well as adult participants, 3) A personal connection is key to engagement and retention, 4) Specific recruitment materials and methods are preferred including family friendly consent forms and advertisements that clearly explain study procedures and clear expectations, 5) There was enthusiasm for the intervention and ideas for consideration in implementing future interventions of this type, and 6) Staff expressed enthusiasm for working in rural areas with rural participants and appreciated the unique aspects of working with this population. This paper provides valuable insight into the operational feasibility of a large, multi-site behavioral intervention trial and outlines lessons learned from study personnel with actionable tips for improving recruitment, retention, and other study procedures. These staff are open to various recruitment methods, and are enthusiastic about working with underserved, rural families. They report that they believe families can be overwhelmed by study procedures, and that a personal connection with families can facilitate study conduct.
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.