ArticleContemporary clinical trials2026
Quantifying the role of communication in recruitment status outcomes for a clinical trial on genetic testing uptake.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipant recruitment remains a significant challenge in clinical trials, often resulting in delays, increased resource expenditures, and missed opportunities for advancing care. While previous research has largely focused on participants' perspectives regarding recruitment barriers, less is known about the influence of different outreach strategies (methods and frequency) from the viewpoint of research staff. This study evaluates the likelihood of reaching a definitive enrollment outcome to inform more effective and resource-efficient recruitment strategies.
methodsData were obtained from recruitment efforts for a two-phase clinical trial aimed at increasing hereditary cancer genetic testing uptake among eligible individuals. Participant recruitment utilized email invitations for patients in participating practices and multimedia campaigns for the public. Eligible participants received up to two email reminders and 5-8 recruitment calls, with a standardized call survey ensuring consistency.
resultsOf the invited, 2485 (82.8%) accessed the email link and completed the eligibility screening survey, of these 80.4% of invitees reached a definitive recruitment status outcome: ineligible (37.2%), refused (15.6%), consented (27.6%), while 19.5% were lost to enrollment. Analysis of call attempts revealed that call attempt one had the highest participant answer rate (∼45%), which declined with each additional attempt, reaching 13% at six or more attempts. Email outreach alone produced probability spikes in definitive outcomes following email reminders. Additional calls demonstrated sharply diminishing returns beyond the fourth to sixth attempts.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that tracking and optimizing outreach frequency, timing, and mode can enhance clinical trial recruitment efficiency. Specifically, at least one email and one phone call significantly improve the likelihood of reaching a definitive recruitment outcome, while exceeding 4-6 call attempts yields minimal additional benefit. These findings provide a framework for recruitment strategies, enabling more effective allocation of resources and increasing the chances of meeting recruitment goals in future clinical trials.
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.