ArticleJournal of cardiac failure - intersections2026
Recruitment Strategies in Registry-Based Observational Research: A Single-Center Experience in the United States from the HeartShare Study.
Article in Journal of cardiac failure - intersections, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Recruiting a representative sample of US adults is challenging, and strategies to improve recruitment have not been well evaluated. This study examined differences in consent rates across 3 recruitment approaches for the HeartShare registry at a single academic center. Methods: The HeartShare registry is a multicenter observational cohort enrolling adults age ≥30 years with or without heart failure. We included participants contacted at a single academic center between August 1, 2023 and August 1, 2024, comparing consent rates across 3 recruitment methods: (1) telephone; (2) electronic health record (EHR) messaging; or (3) in-person. Secondary analyses evaluated differences in consent rates within recruitment strategies by sociodemographic factors. Results: Among 9712 patients contacted (mean age, 72.0; standard deviation [SD] 13.1 years; 46.5% female), 4.2% consented. Of the 1439 patients contacted by telephone, 175 (12.1%) consented. Of the 8080 patients contacted through EHR messaging, 144 (1.8%) consented. Of the 193 contacted in-person, 79 (41%) consented. Compared with phone recruitment, EHR had the lowest consent rate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.17) while in-person contact had the highest consent rate (aOR, 6.49; 95% CI, 4.42-9.53). In-person recruitment showed no significant differences in consent rates between Black and White participants (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.30-1.56). Among those approached via EHR or phone, Black individuals had significantly lower odds of consenting compared with White individuals (EHR: aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.67; Phone: aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.67). Conclusions: In-person recruitment achieved the highest consent rates across groups in this observational registry-based cohort. Although less time intensive, automated EHR recruitment was less effective in engaging underrepresented groups.
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.