Hailey N Miller1,2, Jeanne Charleston2,3, Beiwen Wu3, Kelly Gleason1,2, Karen White3, Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb1,2, Daniel E Ford2,3, Timothy B Plante4, Allan C Gelber3,5, Lawrence J Appel2,3,5, Edgar R Miller2,3,5, Stephen P Juraschek6. 1. School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Electronic-based recruitment methods are increasingly utilized in clinical trials to recruit and enroll research participants. The cost-effectiveness of electronic-based methods and impact on sample generalizability is unknown. We compared recruitment yields, cost-effectiveness, and demographic characteristics across several electronic and traditional recruitment methods. METHODS: We analyzed data from the diet gout trial recruitment campaign. The diet gout trial was a randomized, controlled, cross-over trial that examined the effects of a dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH)-like diet on uric acid levels in adults with gout. We used four electronic medical record and four non-electronic medical record-based recruitment methods to identify and recruit potentially eligible participants. We calculated the response rate, screening visit completion rate, and randomization rate for each method. We also determined cost per response, the screening, and randomization for each method. Finally, we compared the demographic characteristics among individuals who completed the screening visit by recruitment method. RESULTS: Of the 294 adults who responded to the recruitment campaign, 51% were identified from electronic medical record-based methods. Patient portal messaging, an electronic medical record-based method, resulted in the highest response rate (4%), screening visit completion rate (37%), and randomization rate (21%) among these eight methods. Electronic medical record-based methods ($60) were more cost-effective per response than non-electronic medical record-based methods ($107). Electronic-based methods, including patient portal messaging and Facebook, had the highest proportion of White individuals screened (52% and 60%). Direct mail to non-active patient portal increased enrollment of traditionally under-represented groups, including both women and African Americans. CONCLUSION: An electronic medical record-based recruitment strategy that utilized the electronic medical record for participant identification and postal mailing for participant outreach was cost-effective and increased participation of under-represented groups. This hybrid strategy represents a promising approach to improve the timely execution and broad generalizability of future clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Electronic-based recruitment methods are increasingly utilized in clinical trials to recruit and enroll research participants. The cost-effectiveness of electronic-based methods and impact on sample generalizability is unknown. We compared recruitment yields, cost-effectiveness, and demographic characteristics across several electronic and traditional recruitment methods. METHODS: We analyzed data from the diet gout trial recruitment campaign. The diet gout trial was a randomized, controlled, cross-over trial that examined the effects of a dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH)-like diet on uric acid levels in adults with gout. We used four electronic medical record and four non-electronic medical record-based recruitment methods to identify and recruit potentially eligible participants. We calculated the response rate, screening visit completion rate, and randomization rate for each method. We also determined cost per response, the screening, and randomization for each method. Finally, we compared the demographic characteristics among individuals who completed the screening visit by recruitment method. RESULTS: Of the 294 adults who responded to the recruitment campaign, 51% were identified from electronic medical record-based methods. Patient portal messaging, an electronic medical record-based method, resulted in the highest response rate (4%), screening visit completion rate (37%), and randomization rate (21%) among these eight methods. Electronic medical record-based methods ($60) were more cost-effective per response than non-electronic medical record-based methods ($107). Electronic-based methods, including patient portal messaging and Facebook, had the highest proportion of White individuals screened (52% and 60%). Direct mail to non-active patient portal increased enrollment of traditionally under-represented groups, including both women and African Americans. CONCLUSION: An electronic medical record-based recruitment strategy that utilized the electronic medical record for participant identification and postal mailing for participant outreach was cost-effective and increased participation of under-represented groups. This hybrid strategy represents a promising approach to improve the timely execution and broad generalizability of future clinical trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Recruitment methods; clinical trials; disparities; electronic medical records; randomized control trial
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: Muhammad Rizwan Sardar; Marwan Badri; Catherine T Prince; Jonathan Seltzer; Peter R Kowey Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David Fraser; Bruce A Christiansen; Robert Adsit; Timothy B Baker; Michael C Fiore Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.046
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: Janet W Maynard; Mara A McAdams DeMarco; Alan N Baer; Anna Köttgen; Aaron R Folsom; Josef Coresh; Allan C Gelber Journal: Am J Med Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 4.965
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: 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: 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: Jamie R Pogue; Briget M da Graca; Maris Adams; Christine Kruegar; Rupande Patel; Monica Bennett; Mark B Powers; Ann Marie Warren Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2022-02-10
Authors: Monica M Bennett; Megan Douglas; Briget da Graca; Katherine Sanchez; Mark B Powers; Ann Marie Warren Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-18 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Dennis M Bierle; Ravindra Ganesh; Caroline G Wilker; Sara N Hanson; Darcie E Moehnke; Tammy A Jackson; Priya Ramar; Jordan K Rosedahl; Lindsey M Philpot; Raymund R Razonable Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Stephen P Juraschek; Edgar R Miller; Beiwen Wu; Karen White; Jeanne Charleston; Allan C Gelber; Sharan K Rai; Kathryn A Carson; Lawrence J Appel; Hyon K Choi Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-02-07 Impact factor: 5.717