ArticlePloS one2026
Enhancing recruitment and retention strategies in human tobacco research.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging evidence gaps: the role of real-world data in tobacco harm reduction.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
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
introductionRecruitment and retention of study participants in tobacco research studies is challenging, and many studies are not able to meet desired sample sizes, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey study explored tobacco users' motivations and expectations when considering participation in tobacco research and identifies common barriers to participation.
methodsParticipants were adult (21+) tobacco users recruited from a registry of potential research participants. In 2023, participants were emailed a survey to ascertain their motivations for participating in tobacco and health research, their expectations for participation, including compensation and barriers to participating. Means, medians, and proportions were calculated to describe the study population and outcomes. A binary variable for compensation importance was created and analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for demographic and tobacco use factors.
resultsParticipants (n = 267) had a mean age of 46.9 years (SD 11.47) and were 67.4% female, 91.0% White, and 3.4% Hispanic. The majority smoked cigarettes (84.3%), while 34.5% reported electronic cigarette use. Most participants (79.4%) indicated interest in tobacco research because they wanted to quit or reduce smoking/tobacco use. Anticipated median compensation for completing a visit lasting one hour with questionnaires was $25, or $50 if a blood draw was included. Two-thirds (66.7%, n = 178) of participants viewed compensation as important. Younger age was associated with the perceived importance of higher compensation (OR=0.971, 95% CI: 0.949-0.993, p = 0.011). The most commonly reported barriers to participation were related to current work schedule issues (41.6%) and not having the ability to take off work when the research center was open (38.6%).
conclusionMost participants were interested in tobacco and health research for the intrinsic benefit of quitting or reducing smoking. Removing scheduling and transportation issues with remote research when possible, may increase participation rates. When intrinsic benefit is not available, appropriate compensation should be utilized to boost recruitment and retention rates.
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.