Emily C O'Brien1,2, Sudha R Raman3, Alicia Ellis4,5, Bradley G Hammill4,3, Lisa G Berdan4, Tyrus Rorick4, Salim Janmohamed6, Zachary Lampron4, Adrian F Hernandez4,7, Lesley H Curtis4,3. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. emily.obrien@duke.edu. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, 215 Morris Street, Suite 210, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. emily.obrien@duke.edu. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, 215 Morris Street, Suite 210, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 5. UCB, Durham, NC, USA. 6. GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific. CONCLUSIONS: While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.
BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific. CONCLUSIONS: While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.
Authors: William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jennifer B Green; Adrian F Hernandez; Ralph B D'Agostino; Chris B Granger; Salim Janmohamed; Nigel P Jones; Lawrence A Leiter; Drusilla Noronha; Rachael Russell; Kristina Sigmon; Stefano Del Prato; John J V McMurray Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Adrian F Hernandez; Jennifer B Green; Salim Janmohamed; Ralph B D'Agostino; Christopher B Granger; Nigel P Jones; Lawrence A Leiter; Anne E Rosenberg; Kristina N Sigmon; Matthew C Somerville; Karl M Thorpe; John J V McMurray; Stefano Del Prato Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yizhao Ni; Jordan Wright; John Perentesis; Todd Lingren; Louise Deleger; Megan Kaiser; Isaac Kohane; Imre Solti Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Valery S Effoe; Jeffrey A Katula; Julienne K Kirk; Carolyn F Pedley; Linda Y Bollhalter; W Mark Brown; Margaret R Savoca; Stedman T Jones; Janet Baek; Alain G Bertoni Journal: Trials Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ahmed Rafee; Sarah Riepenhausen; Philipp Neuhaus; Alexandra Meidt; Martin Dugas; Julian Varghese Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 4.612