Literature DB >> 11717575

The treating physician as active gatekeeper in the recruitment of research subjects.

J H Gurwitz1, E Guadagnoli, M B Landrum, R A Silliman, R Wolf, J C Weeks.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Institutional Review Boards vary in regard to the conditions imposed on investigators concerning contacting potential subjects to participate in health-services research studies.
OBJECTIVE: The impact of more active involvement of the treating physician was examined in the approval process for recruiting study subjects.
DESIGN: In recruiting subjects for a Massachusetts-based, multihospital (n = 17), health-services research study of treatment patterns for early stage breast cancer that required patient interviews, four hospitals stipulated that the treating surgeon provide written permission to the investigators to allow any contact with a potential study subject for the purpose of recruitment (active physician involvement group); the remaining 13 hospitals stipulated that the treating surgeon need only respond to the investigators if contact with a potential subject was forbidden (passive physician involvement group).
SUBJECTS: Of the 1401 potential subjects treated for early stage breast cancer, 697 were in the active physician involvement group and 704 were in the passive physician involvement group. MEASURES: The percentages of patients for whom contact was allowed for recruitment purposes and who enrolled in the study were determined for the active physician involvement group and the passive physician involvement group, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to assess the independent effect of physician involvement on study enrollment.
RESULTS: Of the 697 patients in the active physician involvement group, contact was approved by the treating surgeon for 72% (n = 505), compared with 91% (n = 638) of the passive physician involvement group (P <0.001). After adjustment for a variety of patient, physician, and hospital-level variables, patients in the passive physician involvement group were found to be significantly more likely to be enrolled in the study (adjusted OR 2.61; 95% CI, 1.53-4.45). However, among those patients approved for investigator contact, there were no significant differences between patients who were enrolled and patients who were not enrolled in the study with regard to physician involvement in the recruitment process (adjusted OR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.70-1.81).
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that more stringent IRB requirements on health services researchers to verify permission from the treating physician to access patients for recruitment purposes adversely impact on the enrollment of patients even in noninterventional research studies. Current procedures for involving the treating physician as a gatekeeper in the recruitment of research subjects may limit access to patient participation in research studies from the perspectives of both researchers and potential subjects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11717575     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200112000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  10 in total

1.  Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Robert S Sandler; Morris Weinberger
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Recruiting older people to a randomised controlled dietary intervention trial--how hard can it be?

Authors:  Sarah E Forster; Laura Jones; John M Saxton; Daniel J Flower; Gemma Foulds; Hilary J Powers; Stuart G Parker; A Graham Pockley; Elizabeth A Williams
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  A survey of the views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care.

Authors:  Clare White; Kristen Gilshenan; Janet Hardy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Comparison of two recruitment strategies for patients with chronic shoulder complaints.

Authors:  Jacques J X R Geraets; Imelda J M de Groot; Mariëlle E J B Goossens; Camiel P C de Bruijn; Rob A de Bie; Wim J A van den Heuvel; Geert-Jan Dinant
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Recruitment of trial participants through electronic medical record patient portal messaging: A pilot study.

Authors:  Timothy B Plante; Kelly T Gleason; Hailey N Miller; Jeanne Charleston; Kristen McArthur; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Mariana Lazo; Daniel E Ford; Edgar R Miller; Lawrence J Appel; Stephen P Juraschek
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Successful recruitment to trials: a phased approach to opening gates and building bridges.

Authors:  Sue Patterson; Hilary Mairs; Rohan Borschmann
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Recruiting former melanoma patients via hospitals in comparison to office-based dermatologists in a register-based cohort study that required indirect contact.

Authors:  S R Zeissig; V Weyer-Elberich; K Emrich; H Binder; S Fischbeck; B H Imruck; P Friedrich-Mai; M E Beutel; M Blettner
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Alcohol and Tobacco Use in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Breast Cancer Patients, Including Sea Island African Americans: Implications for Survivorship.

Authors:  Vivian J Bea; Joan E Cunningham; Anthony J Alberg; Dana Burshell; Colleen E Bauza; Kendrea D Knight; Tonya R Hazelton; Heidi Varner; Rita Kramer; Susan Bolick; Deborah Hurley; Catishia Mosley; Marvella E Ford
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Patient perspectives on use of electronic health records for research recruitment.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Kathleen M Brelsford; Catherine M Hammack
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  Engaging patients throughout the health system: A landscape analysis of cold-call policies and recommendations for future policy change.

Authors:  Kelly R McHugh; Geeta K Swamy; Adrian F Hernandez
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2018-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.