Hailey N Miller1,2, Kelly T Gleason1,2, Stephen P Juraschek3, Timothy B Plante4, Cassie Lewis-Land2, Bonnie Woods2, Lawrence J Appel5, Daniel E Ford5, Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb1,2. 1. School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 5. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to characterize institution-wide participation in secure messaging (SM) at a large academic health network, describe our experience with electronic medical record (EMR)-based cohort selection, and discuss the potential roles of SM for research recruitment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study teams defined eligibility criteria to create a computable phenotype, structured EMR data, to identify and recruit participants. Patients with SM accounts matching this phenotype received recruitment messages. We compared demographic characteristics across SM users and the overall health system. We also tabulated SM activation and use, characteristics of individual studies, and efficacy of the recruitment methods. RESULTS: Of the 1 308 820 patients in the health network, 40% had active SM accounts. SM users had a greater proportion of white and non-Hispanic patients than nonactive SM users id. Among the studies included (n = 13), 77% recruited participants with a specific disease or condition. All studies used demographic criteria for their phenotype, while 46% (n = 6) used demographic, disease, and healthcare utilization criteria. The average SM response rate was 2.9%, with higher rates among condition-specific (3.4%) vs general health (1.4%) studies. Those studies with a more inclusive comprehensive phenotype had a higher response rate. DISCUSSION: Target population and EMR queries (computable phenotypes) affect recruitment efficacy and should be considered when designing an EMR-based recruitment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: SM guided by EMR-based cohort selection is a promising approach to identify and enroll research participants. Efforts to increase the number of active SM users and response rate should be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of this recruitment strategy.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to characterize institution-wide participation in secure messaging (SM) at a large academic health network, describe our experience with electronic medical record (EMR)-based cohort selection, and discuss the potential roles of SM for research recruitment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study teams defined eligibility criteria to create a computable phenotype, structured EMR data, to identify and recruit participants. Patients with SM accounts matching this phenotype received recruitment messages. We compared demographic characteristics across SM users and the overall health system. We also tabulated SM activation and use, characteristics of individual studies, and efficacy of the recruitment methods. RESULTS: Of the 1 308 820 patients in the health network, 40% had active SM accounts. SM users had a greater proportion of white and non-Hispanic patients than nonactive SM users id. Among the studies included (n = 13), 77% recruited participants with a specific disease or condition. All studies used demographic criteria for their phenotype, while 46% (n = 6) used demographic, disease, and healthcare utilization criteria. The average SM response rate was 2.9%, with higher rates among condition-specific (3.4%) vs general health (1.4%) studies. Those studies with a more inclusive comprehensive phenotype had a higher response rate. DISCUSSION: Target population and EMR queries (computable phenotypes) affect recruitment efficacy and should be considered when designing an EMR-based recruitment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: SM guided by EMR-based cohort selection is a promising approach to identify and enroll research participants. Efforts to increase the number of active SM users and response rate should be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of this recruitment strategy.
Authors: Sudha R Raman; Lesley H Curtis; Robert Temple; Tomas Andersson; Justin Ezekowitz; Ian Ford; Stefan James; Keith Marsolo; Parsa Mirhaji; Mitra Rocca; Russell L Rothman; Barathi Sethuraman; Norman Stockbridge; Sharon Terry; Scott M Wasserman; Eric D Peterson; Adrian F Hernandez Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Emily Pfaff; Adam Lee; Robert Bradford; Jinhee Pae; Clarence Potter; Paul Blue; Patricia Knoepp; Kristie Thompson; Christianne L Roumie; David Crenshaw; Remy Servis; Darren A DeWalt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chaitanya Shivade; Preethi Raghavan; Eric Fosler-Lussier; Peter J Embi; Noemie Elhadad; Stephen B Johnson; Albert M Lai Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mary H Samuels; Robert Schuff; Peter Beninato; Adriel Gorsuch; James Dursch; Sarah Egan; Bridget Adams; Kate F Hollis; Rachel Navarro; Timothy E Burdick Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2017-12
Authors: Suzanne G Leveille; Annong Huang; Stephanie B Tsai; Saul N Weingart; Lisa I Iezzoni Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Terese Otte-Trojel; Thomas G Rundall; Antoinette de Bont; Joris van de Klundert; Mary E Reed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Kelly T Gleason; Daniel E Ford; Diana Gumas; Bonnie Woods; Lawrence Appel; Pam Murray; Maureen Meyer; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2018-05-25
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Miriam B Berger; Sandy Askew; Melissa C Kay; Christina M Hopkins; Meghana Sai Iragavarapu; Mia de Leon; Megan Freed; Cherie N Barnes; Qing Yang; Crystal C Tyson; Laura P Svetkey; Gary G Bennett; Dori M Steinberg Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Janelle W Coughlin; Lindsay M Martin; Di Zhao; Attia Goheer; Thomas B Woolf; Katherine Holzhauer; Harold P Lehmann; Michelle R Lent; Kathleen M McTigue; Jeanne M Clark; Wendy L Bennett Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Timothy B Plante; Kelly T Gleason; Jeanne Charleston; Christine M Mitchell; Edgar R Miller; Lawrence J Appel; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 2.261
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: Anagha Prasanna; Hailey N Miller; Yingfei Wu; Anna Peeler; Oluwabunmi Ogungbe; Timothy B Plante; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Lisa M Gehtland; Ryan S Paquin; Sara M Andrews; Adam M Lee; Angela Gwaltney; Martin Duparc; Emily R Pfaff; Donald B Bailey Journal: JMIR Pediatr Parent Date: 2022-02-10
Authors: Kelly T Gleason; Susan Peterson; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; Mariel Villanueva; Taylor Wynn; Paula Bondal; Daniel Berg; Welcome Jerde; David Newman-Toker Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2020-10-05
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