Dataset Information

Comparison of study samples recruited with virtual versus traditional recruitment methods.

ABSTRACT: Background:Traditionally, clinical studies rely on brick-and-mortar sites to recruit participants. Newer technology-based studies have utilized non-traditional virtual methods that can potentially recruit more diverse populations and shorten recruitment timelines. This manuscript aims to quantify how sample metrics across three virtual studies compare to traditionally recruited samples, as a first step in building an empirical evidence base for the experience of participant recruitment in virtual studies. Methods:We conducted a systematic search of the literature using PubMed to identify relevant studies conducted in the United States in cognitive health, diabetes, and hypertension (which we called comparator studies) to compare to three virtual studies. For each included study, we extracted participant demographic characteristics and information on recruitment methods and timing. Two investigators independently extracted this data, compared results for consistency, and contacted comparator study authors for clarifications. Characteristics for measurement included age, sex, race/ethnicity, states represented, recruitment time, and recruitment rate. Results:We identified 19 comparator studies. Virtually recruited samples were slightly younger, had more female participants, and were split on enrollment of racial minorities as compared to comparator studies. Virtually recruited samples were more diverse geographically and recruited faster. Conclusions:Virtual recruitment may enhance efficiency and enable more individuals to participate in clinical research. To our knowledge, this is the first rigorous and replicable study comparing participant demographic characteristics and recruitment metrics between virtual and traditional recruitment methodologies. Future research should compare a wider range of studies on other metrics such as overall cost of recruitment and quality of participants.

SUBMITTER: Moseson H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7327265 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of study samples recruited with virtual versus traditional recruitment methods.

Moseson Heidi H Kumar Shefali S Juusola Jessie L JL

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20200617

<h4>Background</h4>Traditionally, clinical studies rely on brick-and-mortar sites to recruit participants. Newer technology-based studies have utilized non-traditional virtual methods that can potentially recruit more diverse populations and shorten recruitment timelines. This manuscript aims to quantify how sample metrics across three virtual studies compare to traditionally recruited samples, as a first step in building an empirical evidence base for the experience of participant recruitment i ...[more]

PMID: 32637722

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the production of ankle-foot orthoses and in-shoe foot orthoses, lower leg morphology is traditionally captured using a plaster cast or foam impression box. Plaster-based processes are a time-consuming and labour-intensive fabrication method. 3D scanning is a promising alternative, however how these new technologies compare with traditional methods is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the speed, accuracy and reliability of 3D scanning with traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for fabricating orthoses.MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed and electronic databases were searched to March 2020 using keywords related to 3D scanning technologies and traditional foot and ankle morphology capture methods. Studies of any design from healthy or clinical populations of any age and gender were eligible for inclusion. Studies must have compared 3D scanning to another form of capturing morphology of the foot and/or ankle. Data relating to speed, accuracy and reliability as well as study design, 3D scanner specifications and comparative capture techniques were extracted by two authors (M.F. and Z.W.). Study quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).ResultsSix articles met the inclusion criteria, whereby 3D scanning was compared to five traditional methods (plaster cast, foam impression box, ink footprint, digital footprint and clinical assessment). The quality of study outcomes was rated low to moderate (GRADE) and doubtful to adequate (COSMIN). Compared to traditional methods, 3D scanning appeared to be faster than casting (2 to 11?min vs 11 to 16?min). Inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.18-0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICCs 0.25-0.99) were highly variable for both 3D scanning and traditional techniques, with higher agreement generally dependent on the foot parameter measured.ConclusionsThe quality and quantity of literature comparing the speed, accuracy and reliability of 3D scanning with traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology is low. 3D scanning appears to be faster especially for experienced users, however accuracy and reliability between methods is variable.

Project description:BackgroundPain is a complex experience that involves sensory-discriminative and cognitive-emotional neuronal processes. It has long been known across cultures that pain can be relieved by mindful breathing (MB). There is a common assumption that MB exerts its analgesic effect through interoception. Interoception refers to consciously refocusing the mind's attention to the physical sensation of internal organ function.ObjectiveIn this study, we dissect the cortical analgesic processes by imaging the brains of healthy subjects exposed to traditional MB (TMB) and compare them with another group for which we augmented MB to an outside sensory experience via virtual reality breathing (VRB).MethodsThe VRB protocol involved in-house-developed virtual reality 3D lungs that synchronized with the participants' breathing cycles in real time, providing them with an immersive visual-auditory exteroception of their breathing.ResultsWe found that both breathing interventions led to a significant increase in pain thresholds after week-long practices, as measured by a thermal quantitative sensory test. However, the underlying analgesic brain mechanisms were opposite, as revealed by functional near-infrared spectroscopy data. In the TMB practice, the anterior prefrontal cortex uniquely modulated the premotor cortex. This increased its functional connection with the primary somatosensory cortex (S1), thereby facilitating the S1-based sensory-interoceptive processing of breathing but inhibiting its other role in sensory-discriminative pain processing. In contrast, virtual reality induced an immersive 3D exteroception with augmented visual-auditory cortical activations, which diminished the functional connection with the S1 and consequently weakened the pain processing function of the S1.ConclusionsIn summary, our study suggested two analgesic neuromechanisms of VRB and TMB practices-exteroception and interoception-that distinctively modulated the S1 processing of the ascending noxious inputs. This is in line with the concept of dualism (Yin and Yang).

Project description:BackgroundRealistic, portable, and scalable lectures, cadaveric models, 2D atlases and computer simulations are being combined more frequently for teaching anatomy, which result in major increases in user satisfaction. However, although digital simulations may be more portable, interesting, or motivating than traditional teaching tools, whether they are superior in terms of student learning remain unclear. This paper presents a study in which the educational effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR) skull model is compared with that of cadaveric skulls and atlases. The aim of this study was to compare the results of teaching with VR to results of teaching with traditional teaching methods by administering objective questionnaires and perception surveys.MethodsA mixed-methods study with 73 medical students was conducted with three different groups, namely, the VR group (N?=?25), cadaver group (N?=?25) and atlas group (N?=?23). Anatomical structures were taught through an introductory lecture and model-based learning. All students completed the pre- and post-intervention tests, which comprised a theory test and an identification test. The theory test consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions, and the identification test consisted of 25 fill-in-the-blank questions.ResultsThe participants in all three groups had significantly higher total scores on the post-intervention test than on the pre-intervention test; the post-intervention test score in the VR group was not statistically significantly higher than the post-intervention test score of the other groups (VR: 30 [IQR: 22-33.5], cadaver: 26 [IQR: 20-31.5], atlas: 28[IQR: 20-33]; p?>?0.05). The participants in the VR and cadaver groups provided more positive feedback on their learning models than the atlas group (VR: 26 [IQR: 19-30], cadaver: 25 [IQR: 19.5-29.5], atlas: 12 [IQR: 9-20]; p?<?0.001).ConclusionsThe skull virtual learning resource (VLR) was equally efficient as the cadaver skull and atlas in teaching anatomy structures. Such a model can aid individuals in understanding complex anatomical structures with a higher level of motivation and tolerable adverse effects.

Dataset Information

Comparison of study samples recruited with virtual versus traditional recruitment methods.

Publications

Comparison of study samples recruited with virtual versus traditional recruitment methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets