ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Diverse Recruitment for Clinical Trials Using Three Diversity-Enhancing Interventions: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lack of diversity in clinical trials reduces the generalizability of treatment efficacy across different demographic groups, thereby diminishing the relevance, quality, and equity of research findings. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of 4 recruitment strategies and their impact on clinical trial enrollment through the Trial of Sites to Increase Diversity in Clinical Trials (TOTAL) project, a collaboration between Stanford and Morehouse School of Medicine funded by the American Heart Association. Methods: Clinical trials were randomized to 1 of 3 recruitment strategy intervention arms (community ambassador, social media ads, or registry and patient engagement platforms) or the control arm (usual recruitment). The Stanford Lightning Report, a rapid qualitative approach, was used to gather insights through interviews with principal investigators (PIs) and trial staff at baseline, 3 months, and trial completion. Results: Trial teams were supportive of increasing diversity and found the recruitment platforms generally user-friendly. External recruitment support was valued, and some trials reported improved access to participants outside their usual pool. Community ambassadors helped connect trials with community and physician networks and, in some cases, increased recruitment of Asian American participants. Registry and patient engagement platforms were easy to use and supported outreach, including direct emails to potential participants. Social media ads, particularly after the transition to BuildClinical (BuildClinical LLC), improved screening efficiency by prescreening candidates and producing a manageable number of eligible leads. Usual recruitment relied mainly on physician referrals and benefited from trusted clinician-patient relationships, but many trials exhausted their typical participant pools. Across strategies, major barriers included limited time, staff capacity, and financial resources; scarcity of diverse local populations; restrictive eligibility criteria; lack of language access; transportation burdens; and limitations of remote engagement. Additional operational barriers included institutional review board (IRB) delays, contract and vendor approval processes, and platform policy restrictions for digital advertising. Feedback from Lightning Reports led to several real-time changes, including a shift from in-house social media outreach to specialized digital recruitment support. Conclusions: Increasing diversity in clinical trials requires sustained financial, human, and institutional support, as well as effective recruitment strategies. Rapid qualitative feedback can identify implementation problems early and support real-time improvements.
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.