Dataset Information

CTSA recruitment resources: An inventory of what CTSA hubs are currently offering.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In order to tackle the challenge of efficiently meeting clinical research accrual goals, many Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) recipients have developed recruitment support mechanisms and resources to help investigators successfully recruit study participants. Disseminating recruitment best practices and developing collaborations between institutions can help strengthen recruitment capabilities and methodologies currently utilized by researchers.

Methods

To discover what recruitment resources and mechanisms CTSAs are using, the CTSA Recruitment and Retention working group developed an electronic survey, which was distributed to CTSAs between May and July 2019. The survey contained over 50 multiple choice and short answer questions, with 40 of the 64 CTSA institutions completing the survey. Institutions reported on registries, feasibility assessment tools, clinical trial listings, experience recruiting special populations, program operations and evaluation, workforce education, social media use, and other recruitment resources.

Results

All respondents currently utilize some form of a volunteer registry; over 80% of the CTSAs provide investigators with recruitment consultations, feasibility assessments, study listings, and electronic health record (EHR) utilization; 73% assist with study materials; 47% offer social media assistance. Many institutions reported success in recruiting patients and healthy volunteers, but difficulty in recruiting special populations such as non-English-speaking persons and rural populations. Additional recruitment tools included use of the EHR to facilitate recruitment, use of registries, and use of social media to engage participants.

Conclusions

Areas of opportunity or growth include the development of innovative solutions in the areas of social media advertising, identification of participants from special populations, and research volunteer engagement.

SUBMITTER: Niyibizi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057486 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMore women are using Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Departments (EDs), yet VHA ED capacities to meet the needs of women are unknown.ObjectiveWe assessed VHA ED resources and processes for conditions specific to, or more common in, women Veterans.Design/subjectsCross-sectional questionnaire of the census of VHA ED directorsMain measuresResources and processes in place for gynecologic, obstetric, sexual assault and mental health care, as well as patient privacy features, stratified by ED characteristics.Key resultsAll 120 VHA EDs completed the questionnaire. Approximately nine out of ten EDs reported having gynecologic examination tables within their EDs, 24/7 access to specula, and Gonorrhea/Chlamydia DNA probes. All EDs reported 24/7 access to pregnancy testing. Fewer than two-fifths of EDs reported having radiologist review of pelvic ultrasound images available 24/7; one-third reported having emergent consultations from gynecologists available 24/7. Written transfer policies specific to gynecologic and obstetric emergencies were reported as available in fewer than half of EDs. Most EDs reported having emergency contraception 24/7; however, only approximately half reported having Rho(D) Immunoglobulin available 24/7. Templated triage notes and standing orders relevant to gynecologic conditions were reported as uncommon. Consistent with VHA policy, most EDs reported obtaining care for victims of sexual assault by transferring them to another institution. Most EDs reported having some access to private medical and mental health rooms. Resources and processes were found to be more available in EDs with more encounters by women, more ED staffed beds, and that were located in more complex facilities in metropolitan areas.ConclusionsAlthough most VHA EDs have resources and processes needed for delivering emergency care to women Veterans, some gaps exist. Studies in non-VA EDs are required for comparison. Creative solutions are needed to ensure that women presenting to VHA EDs receive efficient, timely, and consistently high-quality care.

Project description:PurposeTo respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability.MethodThe CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsForty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness.ConclusionsMany CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Project description:The Study to Assess Long-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness (SALOME) is a two-stage phase III, single site (Vancouver, Canada), randomized, double blind controlled trial designed to test if hydromorphone is as effective as diacetylmorphine for the treatment of long-term illicit opioid injection. Recruiting participants for clinical trials continues to be a challenge in medical and addiction research, with many studies not being able to reach the planned sample size in a timely manner. The aim of this study is to describe the recruitment strategies in SALOME, which offered appealing treatments but had limited clinic capacity and no guaranteed post-trial continuation of the treatments.SALOME included chronic opioid-dependent, current illicit injection opioid users who had at least one previous episode of opioid maintenance treatment. Regulatory approvals were received in June 2011 and recruitment strategies were implemented over the next 5 months. Recruitment strategies included ongoing open communication with the community, a consistent and accessible team and participant-centered screening. All applicants completed a pre-screening checklist to assess prerequisites. Applicants meeting these prerequisites were later contacted to commence the screening process.A total of 598 applications were received over the two-year recruitment period; 130 were received on the first day of recruitment. Of these applicants, 485 met prerequisites; however, many could not be found or were not reached before recruitment ended. For the 253 candidates who initiated the screening process, the average time lapse between application and screening date was 8.3 months (standard deviation [SD]?=?4.44) and for the 202 randomized to the study, the average processing time from initial screen to randomization was 25.9 days (SD?=?37.48; Median?=?15.0).As in prior trials offering injectable diacetylmorphine within a supervised model, recruiting participants for this study took longer than planned. The recruitment challenges overcome in SALOME were due to the high number of applicants compared with the limited number that could be randomized and treated. Our study emphasizes the value of integrating these strategies into clinical addiction research to overcome study-specific barriers.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01447212.

Project description:Patient recruitment into clinical trials is a major challenge, and the elderly, socially deprived and those with multiple comorbidities are often underrepresented. The idea of paying patients an incentive to participate in research is controversial, and evidence is needed to evaluate this as a recruitment strategy.In this study, we sought to assess the impact on clinical trial recruitment of a £100 incentive payment and whether the offer of this payment attracted more elderly and socially deprived patients. A total of 1,015 potential patients for five clinical trials (SCOT, FAST and PATHWAY 1, 2 and 3) were randomised to receive either a standard trial invitation letter or a trial invitation letter containing an incentive offer of £100. To receive payment, patients had to attend a screening visit and consent to be screened (that is, sign a consent form). To maintain equality, eventually all patients who signed a consent form were paid £100.The £100 incentive offer increased positive response to the first invitation letter from 24.7% to 31.6%, an increase of 6.9% (P?<?0.05). The incentive offer increased the number of patients signing a consent form by 5.1% (P?<?0.05). The mean age of patients who responded positively to the invitation letter was 66.5?±?8.7 years, whereas those who responded negatively were significantly older, with a mean age of 68.9?±?9.0 years. The incentive offer did not influence the age of patients responding. The incentive offer did not improve response in the most socially deprived areas, and the response from patients in these areas was significantly lower overall.A £100 incentive payment offer led to small but significant improvements in both patient response to a clinical trial invitation letter and in the number of patients who consented to be screened. The incentive payment did not attract elderly or more socially deprived patients.Standard care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00447759 ). Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) (EudraCT number: 2011-001883-23 ). Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension with Algorithm Guided Therapy (British Heart Foundation funded trials) (PATHWAY) 1: Monotherapy versus dual therapy for initiating treatment (EudraCT number: 2008-007749-29 ). PATHWAY 2: Optimal treatment of drug-resistant hypertension (EudraCT number: 2008-007149-30 ). PATHWAY 3: Comparison of single and combination diuretics in low-renin hypertension (EudraCT number: 2009-010068-41 ).