Vanita R Aroda1,2, Patricia R Sheehan3, Ellen M Vickery3, Myrlene A Staten4, Erin S LeBlanc5, Lawrence S Phillips6,7, Irwin G Brodsky8, Chhavi Chadha9, Ranee Chatterjee10, Miranda G Ouellette11,12, Cyrus Desouza13, Anastassios G Pittas3. 1. 1 MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD, USA. 2. 2 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. 3 Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. 4 KGS for The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. 5 Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research NW, Portland, OR, USA. 6. 6 Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, GA, USA. 7. 7 Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. 8 Maine Medical Center, Scarborough, ME, USA. 9. 9 HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 10. 10 Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 11. 11 University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. 12. 12 Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA. 13. 13 University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To establish recruitment approaches that leverage electronic health records in multicenter prediabetes/diabetes clinical trials and compare recruitment outcomes between electronic health record-supported and conventional recruitment methods. METHODS: Observational analysis of recruitment approaches in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study, a multicenter trial in participants with prediabetes. Outcomes were adoption of electronic health record-supported recruitment approaches by sites, number of participants screened, recruitment performance (proportion screened who were randomized), and characteristics of participants from electronic health record-supported versus non-electronic health record methods. RESULTS: In total, 2423 participants were randomized: 1920 from electronic health record (mean age of 60 years, 41% women, 68% White) and 503 from non-electronic health record sources (mean age of 56.9 years, 58% women, 61% White). Electronic health record-supported recruitment was adopted by 21 of 22 sites. Electronic health record-supported recruitment was associated with more participants screened versus non-electronic health record methods (4969 vs 2166 participants screened), higher performance (38.6% vs 22.7%), and more randomizations (1918 vs 505). Participants recruited via electronic health record were older, included fewer women and minorities, and reported higher use of dietary supplements. Electronic health record-supported recruitment was incorporated in diverse clinical environments, engaging clinicians either at the individual or the healthcare system level. CONCLUSION: Establishing electronic health record-supported recruitment approaches across a multicenter prediabetes/diabetes trial is feasible and can be adopted by diverse clinical environments.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To establish recruitment approaches that leverage electronic health records in multicenter prediabetes/diabetes clinical trials and compare recruitment outcomes between electronic health record-supported and conventional recruitment methods. METHODS: Observational analysis of recruitment approaches in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study, a multicenter trial in participants with prediabetes. Outcomes were adoption of electronic health record-supported recruitment approaches by sites, number of participants screened, recruitment performance (proportion screened who were randomized), and characteristics of participants from electronic health record-supported versus non-electronic health record methods. RESULTS: In total, 2423 participants were randomized: 1920 from electronic health record (mean age of 60 years, 41% women, 68% White) and 503 from non-electronic health record sources (mean age of 56.9 years, 58% women, 61% White). Electronic health record-supported recruitment was adopted by 21 of 22 sites. Electronic health record-supported recruitment was associated with more participants screened versus non-electronic health record methods (4969 vs 2166 participants screened), higher performance (38.6% vs 22.7%), and more randomizations (1918 vs 505). Participants recruited via electronic health record were older, included fewer women and minorities, and reported higher use of dietary supplements. Electronic health record-supported recruitment was incorporated in diverse clinical environments, engaging clinicians either at the individual or the healthcare system level. CONCLUSION: Establishing electronic health record-supported recruitment approaches across a multicenter prediabetes/diabetes trial is feasible and can be adopted by diverse clinical environments.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prediabetes; diabetes; health records; recruitment; trial
Authors: Richard R Rubin; Wilfred Y Fujimoto; David G Marrero; Tina Brenneman; Jeanne B Charleston; Sharon L Edelstein; Edwin B Fisher; Ruth Jordan; William C Knowler; Lynne C Lichterman; Melvin Prince; Patricia M Rowe Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2002-04
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: Shaun Treweek; Pauline Lockhart; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Kjeldstrøm; Marit Johansen; Taina K Taskila; Frank M Sullivan; Sue Wilson; Catherine Jackson; Ritu Jones; Elizabeth D Mitchell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Felix Köpcke; Benjamin Trinczek; Raphael W Majeed; Björn Schreiweis; Joachim Wenk; Thomas Leusch; Thomas Ganslandt; Christian Ohmann; Björn Bergh; Rainer Röhrig; Martin Dugas; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Anastassios G Pittas; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Patricia R Sheehan; Clifford J Rosen; James H Ware; William C Knowler; Myrlene A Staten Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anastassios G Pittas; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Patricia Sheehan; James H Ware; William C Knowler; Vanita R Aroda; Irwin Brodsky; Lisa Ceglia; Chhavi Chadha; Ranee Chatterjee; Cyrus Desouza; Rowena Dolor; John Foreyt; Paul Fuss; Adline Ghazi; Daniel S Hsia; Karen C Johnson; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Sun Kim; Erin S LeBlanc; Michael R Lewis; Emilia Liao; Lisa M Neff; Jason Nelson; Patrick O'Neil; Jean Park; Anne Peters; Lawrence S Phillips; Richard Pratley; Philip Raskin; Neda Rasouli; David Robbins; Clifford Rosen; Ellen M Vickery; Myrlene Staten Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Neda Rasouli; Irwin G Brodsky; Ranee Chatterjee; Sun H Kim; Richard E Pratley; Myrlene A Staten; Anastassios G Pittas Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.134
Authors: Karen C Johnson; Anastassios G Pittas; Karen L Margolis; Anne L Peters; Lawrence S Phillips; Ellen M Vickery; Jason Nelson; Patricia R Sheehan; David Reboussin; Saul Malozowski; Ranee Chatterjee Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 4.884
Authors: Sun H Kim; Irwin G Brodsky; Ranee Chatterjee; Sangeeta R Kashyap; William C Knowler; Emilia Liao; Jason Nelson; Richard Pratley; Neda Rasouli; Ellen M Vickery; Mark Sarnak; Anastassios G Pittas Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Caleb J Ruth; Samantha Lee Huey; Jesse T Krisher; Amy Fothergill; Bryan M Gannon; Camille Elyse Jones; Elizabeth Centeno-Tablante; Laura S Hackl; Susannah Colt; Julia Leigh Finkelstein; Saurabh Mehta Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Wendy L Bennett; Carolyn T Bramante; Scott D Rothenberger; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Sharon J Herring; Michelle R Lent; Jeanne M Clark; Molly B Conroy; Harold Lehmann; Nickie Cappella; Megan Gauvey-Kern; Jody McCullough; Kathleen M McTigue Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 5.428