ArticleTrials2026
Digital tools for recruitment and retention of participants in paediatric clinical research: a scoping review.
Article in 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital tools are increasingly used to support recruitment and retention of participants in paediatric research, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the extent of the evidence supporting this method in paediatric populations has yet to be evaluated. This scoping review aimed to review the literature on digital tools for recruitment and/or retention of participants in paediatric research, including emerging evidence following the pandemic.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies evaluating a digital tool for recruitment or retention in paediatric research in any patient population aged <13 years. Records were identified from systematic database searches with a librarian (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL), limited to English, from 2013 onwards (last search 03/07/2024), and manual searches. Records were screened and extracted independently in duplicate. The data were charted and narratively summarised.
resultsSixty-one out of 4988 records were included. Most evaluations used an observational design; only 5 (8%) involved a randomised experiment. The host studies were mostly aiming to recruit children aged 5-12 years (n = 42; 69%), with a predominantly health promotion (n = 18; 30%), developmental (n = 12; 20%), or oncology (n = 9; 15%) focus. Most studies used multi-component digital interventions for recruitment (n = 39/53; 74%) or retention (n = 17/31; 55%). Social media (n = 33/52; 62%) and websites (n = 19/53; 36%) were most commonly used for recruitment, whereas text/instant messaging (n = 17/31; 55%) and email (n = 11/31; 36%) were the most common retention strategies. The estimates of recruitment and retention rates, and reach per digital tool varied widely between studies. Strategies in underserved populations reflected those used most commonly overall. Multi-component digital strategies were found to support a high rate of retention (84.1-90.7%) during pandemic restrictions.
conclusionsThis scoping review highlights the broad array of digital tools that have been used to support recruitment and retention in studies of infants and children, including in subgroups of underserved populations and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most evaluations were observational and examined multi-component digital interventions. The lack of studies with a robust analytical design in the literature signals a need for further high-quality, randomised, within-study evaluations following standardised reporting criteria. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/ybfhr/ . Registered on July 5 2024.
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.