Emily Pfaff1, Adam Lee1, Robert Bradford1, Jinhee Pae1, Clarence Potter1, Paul Blue1, Patricia Knoepp1, Kristie Thompson2, Christianne L Roumie3, David Crenshaw4, Remy Servis4, Darren A DeWalt5. 1. NC TraCS Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Veteran's Administration, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
Objective: Querying electronic health records (EHRs) to find patients meeting study criteria is an efficient method of identifying potential study participants. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of EHR-driven recruitment in the context of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness)-a pragmatic trial aiming to recruit 15 000 patients. Materials and Methods: We compared the participant yield of 4 recruitment methods: in-clinic recruitment by a research coordinator, letters, direct email, and patient portal messages. Taken together, the latter 2 methods comprised our EHR-driven electronic recruitment workflow. Results: The electronic recruitment workflow sent electronic messages to 12 254 recipients; 13.5% of these recipients visited the study website, and 4.2% enrolled in the study. Letters were sent to 427 recipients; 5.6% visited the study website, and 3.3% enrolled in the study. Coordinators recruited 339 participants in clinic; 23.6% visited the study website, and 16.8% enrolled in the study. Five-hundred-nine of the 580 UNC enrollees (87.8%) were recruited using an electronic method. Discussion: Electronic recruitment reached a wide net of patients, recruited many participants to the study, and resulted in a workflow that can be reused for future studies. In-clinic recruitment saw the highest yield, suggesting that a combination of recruitment methods may be the best approach. Future work should account for demographic skew that may result by recruiting from a pool of patient portal users. Conclusion: The success of electronic recruitment for ADAPTABLE makes this workflow well worth incorporating into an overall recruitment strategy, particularly for a pragmatic trial.
Objective: Querying electronic health records (EHRs) to find patients meeting study criteria is an efficient method of identifying potential study participants. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of EHR-driven recruitment in the context of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness)-a pragmatic trial aiming to recruit 15 000 patients. Materials and Methods: We compared the participant yield of 4 recruitment methods: in-clinic recruitment by a research coordinator, letters, direct email, and patient portal messages. Taken together, the latter 2 methods comprised our EHR-driven electronic recruitment workflow. Results: The electronic recruitment workflow sent electronic messages to 12 254 recipients; 13.5% of these recipients visited the study website, and 4.2% enrolled in the study. Letters were sent to 427 recipients; 5.6% visited the study website, and 3.3% enrolled in the study. Coordinators recruited 339 participants in clinic; 23.6% visited the study website, and 16.8% enrolled in the study. Five-hundred-nine of the 580 UNC enrollees (87.8%) were recruited using an electronic method. Discussion: Electronic recruitment reached a wide net of patients, recruited many participants to the study, and resulted in a workflow that can be reused for future studies. In-clinic recruitment saw the highest yield, suggesting that a combination of recruitment methods may be the best approach. Future work should account for demographic skew that may result by recruiting from a pool of patient portal users. Conclusion: The success of electronic recruitment for ADAPTABLE makes this workflow well worth incorporating into an overall recruitment strategy, particularly for a pragmatic trial.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Rachel L Richesson; W Ed Hammond; Meredith Nahm; Douglas Wixted; Gregory E Simon; Jennifer G Robinson; Alan E Bauck; Denise Cifelli; Michelle M Smerek; John Dickerson; Reesa L Laws; Rosemary A Madigan; Shelley A Rusincovitch; Cynthia Kluchar; Robert M Califf Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christopher N Schmickl; Man Li; Guangxi Li; Marnie M Wetzstein; Vitaly Herasevich; Ognjen Gajic; Roberto P Benzo Journal: Respir Med Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Samir R Thadani; Chunhua Weng; J Thomas Bigger; John F Ennever; David Wajngurt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lorraine S Wallace; Heather Angier; Nathalie Huguet; James A Gaudino; Alex Krist; Marla Dearing; Marie Killerby; Miguel Marino; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Kelly T Gleason; Stephen P Juraschek; Timothy B Plante; Cassie Lewis-Land; Bonnie Woods; Lawrence J Appel; Daniel E Ford; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jordan B Strom; Varsha K Tanguturi; Sherif F Nagueh; Allan L Klein; Warren J Manning Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Patrice Jordan Fleming; Yongyun Shin; Ken Resnicow; Resa M Jones; Susan A Flocke; Deirdre A Shires; Sarah T Hawley; David Willens; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Vaishnavi Kannan; Kathleen E Wilkinson; Mereeja Varghese; Sarah Lynch-Medick; Duwayne L Willett; Teresa A Bosler; Ling Chu; Samantha I Gates; M E Blair Holbein; Mallory M Willett; Sharon C Reimold; Robert D Toto Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sudha R Raman; Emily C O'Brien; Bradley G Hammill; Adam J Nelson; Laura J Fish; Lesley H Curtis; Keith Marsolo Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yoo Jin Kim; Julie A DeLisa; Yu-Che Chung; Nancy L Shapiro; Subhash K Kolar Rajanna; Edward Barbour; Jeffrey A Loeb; Justin Turner; Susan Daley; John Skowlund; Jerry A Krishnan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Jeanne Charleston; Beiwen Wu; Kelly Gleason; Karen White; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; Daniel E Ford; Timothy B Plante; Allan C Gelber; Lawrence J Appel; Edgar R Miller; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Carmen Rosa; Lisa A Marsch; Erin L Winstanley; Meg Brunner; Aimee N C Campbell Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 2.226