Dataset Information

Early experience with an opt-in research register - Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE): a multi-method evaluation of participant recruitment performance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recruiting participants to a clinical study is a resource-intensive process with a high failure rate. The Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE) provides recruitment support service which helps researchers recruit participants by searching patients' Electronic Health Records (EHRs). The current study aims to evaluate the performance of SHARE in participant recruitment.

Methods

Recruitment projects eligible for evaluation were those that were conducted for clinical trials or observational studies and finished before 2020. For analysis of recruitment data, projects with incomplete data were excluded. For each project we calculated, from SHARE records, 1) the fraction of the participants recruited through SHARE as a percentage of the number requested by researchers (percentage fulfilled), 2) the percentage of the potential candidates provided by SHARE to researchers that were actually recruited (percentage provided and recruited), 3) the percentage of the participants recruited through SHARE of all the potentially eligible candidates identified by searching registrants' EHRs (percentage identified and recruited). Research teams of the eligible projects were invited to participate in an anonymised online survey. Two metrics were derived from research teams' responses, including a) the fraction of the recruited over the study target number of participants (percentage fulfilled), and b) the percentage of the participants recruited through SHARE among the candidates received from SHARE (percentage provided and recruited).

Results

Forty-four projects were eligible for inclusion. Recruitment data for 24 projects were available (20 excluded because of missingness or incompleteness). Survey invites were sent to all the eligible research teams and received 12 responses. Analysis of recruitment data shows the overall percentage fulfilled was 34.2% (interquartile 13.3-45.1%), the percentage provided and recruited 29.3% (interquartile 20.6-52.4%) and percentage identified and recruited 4.9% (interquartile 2.6-10.2%). Based on the data reported by researchers, percentage fulfilled was 31.7% (interquartile 5.8-59.6%) and percentage provided and recruited was 20.2% (interquartile 8.2-31.0%).

Conclusions

SHARE may be a valuable resource for recruiting participants for some clinical studies. Potential improvements are to expand the registrant base and to incorporate more data generated during patients' different health care encounters into the candidate-searching step.

SUBMITTER: Shi W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8686271 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrials often struggle to achieve their target sample size with only half doing so. Some researchers have turned to Electronic Health Records (EHRs), seeking a more efficient way of recruitment. The Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE) obtained patients' consent for their EHRs to be used as a searching base from which researchers can find potential participants. However, due to the fact that EHR data is not complete, sufficient or accurate, a database search strategy may not generate the best case-finding result. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of a case-based reasoning method in identifying participants for population-based clinical studies recruiting through SHARE, and assess the difference between its resultant cohort and the original one deriving from searching EHRs.MethodsA case-based reasoning framework was applied to 119 participants in nine projects using two-fold cross-validation, with records from a further 86,292 individuals used for testing. A prediction score for study participation was derived from the diagnosis, procedure, pharmaceutical prescription, and laboratory test results attributes of each participant. Evaluation was conducted by calculating Area Under the ROC Curve and information retrieval metrics for the ranking list of the test set by prediction score. We compared the most likely participants as identified by searching a database to those ranked highest by our model.ResultsThe average ROCAUC for nine projects was 81% indicating strong predictive ability for these data. However, the derived ranking lists showed lower predictive performance, with only 21% of the persons ranked within top 50 positions being the same as identified by searching databases.ConclusionsCase-based reasoning is may be more effective than a database search strategy for participant identification for clinical studies using population EHRs. The lower performance of ranking lists derived from case-based reasoning means that patients identified as highly suitable for study participation may still not be recruited. This suggests that further study is needed into improvements in the collection and curation of population EHRs, such as use of free text data to aid reliable identification of people more likely to be recruited to clinical trials.

Project description:Importance:Using social media to recruit participants is a common and cost-effective practice. Willingness to participate (WTP) in biomedical research is a function of trust in the scientific team, which is closely tied to the source of funding and institutional connections. Objective:To determine whether WTP and willingness to share social media data are associated with the type of research team and online recruitment platform. Design, Setting, and Participants:This mixed-methods longitudinal survey and qualitative study was conducted over 2 points (T1 and T2) using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. Participants were US adults aged 18 years or older who use at least 1 social media platform. Recruitment was stratified to match race/ethnicity proportions of the 2010 US Census. The volunteer sample consisted of 914 participants at T1, and 655 participants completed the follow-up survey 5 months later (T2). Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes were (1) past experience with online research and sharing social media data for research; (2) WTP in research advertised online; (3) WTP in a study sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, a university, or a federal agency; and (4) willingness to share social media data. Opinions were solicited regarding the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation statute, which came into effect between T1 and T2. Results:Of 914 participants completing the first survey (T1), 604 (66.1%) were aged 18 to 39 years and 494 (54.0%) were female. Of these, 655 participants (71.7%) responded at T2. While 680 participants (74.4%) indicated WTP in biomedical research, only 454 (49.3%) were willing to share their social media data. Participants were significantly less likely to participate in federally sponsored (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.64; P?<?.001) or pharmaceutical company (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.66; P?<?.001) research than university-led studies. They were also less likely to share their social medial data for federal (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.72; P?<?.001) or pharmaceutical company (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.56; P?<?.001) research compared with academic studies. Willingness to participate in pharmaceutical company-led research decreased 11.89% from T1 to T2 (OR for T2, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77; P?<?.001). Reasons for WTP were interest in furthering science, financial incentives, trust in the organization, and data security. While 63.0% of respondents reported seeing new privacy policy emails related to the General Data Protection Regulation law, only 27.1% indicated this positively influenced their WTP. Thematic analysis of responses indicated that WTP may improve with stronger data security measures. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that researchers may see reduced online research participation and data sharing, particularly for research conducted outside academia.

Project description:BackgroundParticipant recruitment is an ongoing challenge in health research. Recruitment may be especially difficult for studies of access to health care because, even among those who are in care, people using services least often also may be hardest to contact and recruit. Opt-out recruitment methods (in which potential participants are given the opportunity to decline further contact about the study (opt out) following an initial mailing, and are then contacted directly if they have not opted out within a specified period) can be used for such studies. However, there is a dearth of literature on the effort needed for effective opt-out recruitment.MethodsIn this paper we describe opt-out recruitment procedures for two studies on access to health care within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. We report resource requirements for recruitment efforts (number of opt-out packets mailed and number of phone calls made). We also compare the characteristics of study participants to potential participants via t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and chi-squared tests.ResultsRecruitment rates for our two studies were 12 and 21%, respectively. Across multiple study sites, we had to send between 4.3 and 9.2 opt-out packets to recruit one participant. The number of phone calls required to arrive at a final status for each potentially eligible Veteran (i.e. study participation or the termination of recruitment efforts) were 2.9 and 6.1 in the two studies, respectively. Study participants differed as expected from the population of potentially eligible Veterans based on planned oversampling of certain subpopulations. The final samples of participants did not differ statistically from those who were mailed opt-out packets, with one exception: in one of our two studies, participants had higher rates of mental health service use in the past year than did those mailed opt-out packets (64 vs. 47%).ConclusionsOur results emphasize the practicality of using opt-out methods for studies of access to health care. Despite the benefits of these methods, opt-out alone may be insufficient to eliminate non-response bias on key variables. Researchers will need to balance considerations of sample representativeness and feasibility when designing studies investigating access to care.

Project description:BackgroundAsian-Americans are one of the most understudied racial/ethnic minority populations. To increase representation of Asian subgroups, researchers have traditionally relied on data collection at community venues and events. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created serious challenges for in-person data collection. In this case study, we describe multi-modal strategies for online recruitment of U.S. Vietnamese parents, compare response rates and participant characteristics among strategies, and discuss lessons learned.MethodsWe recruited 408 participants from community-based organizations (CBOs) (n = 68), Facebook groups (n = 97), listservs (n = 4), personal network (n = 42), and snowball sampling (n = 197). Using chi-square tests and one-way analyses of variance, we compared participants recruited through different strategies regarding sociodemographic characteristics, acculturation-related characteristics, and mobile health usage.ResultsThe overall response rate was 71.8% (range: 51.5% for Vietnamese CBOs to 86.6% for Facebook groups). Significant differences exist for all sociodemographic and almost all acculturation-related characteristics among recruitment strategies. Notably, CBO-recruited participants were the oldest, had lived in the U.S. for the longest duration, and had the lowest Vietnamese language ability. We found some similarities between Facebook-recruited participants and those referred by Facebook-recruited participants. Mobile health usage was high and did not vary based on recruitment strategies. Challenges included encountering fraudulent responses (e.g., non-Vietnamese). Perceived benefits and trust appeared to facilitate recruitment.ConclusionsFacebook and snowball sampling may be feasible strategies to recruit U.S. Vietnamese. Findings suggest the potential for mobile-based research implementation. Perceived benefits and trust could encourage participation and may be related to cultural ties. Attention should be paid to recruitment with CBOs and handling fraudulent responses.

Project description:Due to recently proposed changes in the Common Rule regarding the collection of research preferences, there is an increased need for efficient methods to document opt-in research preferences at a population level. Previously, our institution developed an opt-out paper-based workflow that could not be utilized for research in a scalable fashion. This project was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an electronic health record (EHR)-based active opt-in research preferences program. The first phase of implementation required creating and disseminating a patient questionnaire through the EHR portal to populate discreet fields within the EHR indicating patients' preferences for future research study contact (contact) and their willingness to allow anonymised use of excess tissue and fluid specimens (biobank). In the second phase, the questionnaire was presented within a clinic nurse intake workflow in an obstetrical clinic. These permissions were tabulated in registries for use by investigators for feasibility studies and recruitment. The registry was also used for research patient contact management using a new EHR encounter type to differentiate research from clinical encounters. The research permissions questionnaire was sent to 59,670 patients via the EHR portal. Within four months, 21,814 responses (75% willing to participate in biobanking, and 72% willing to be contacted for future research) were received. Each response was recorded within a patient portal encounter to enable longitudinal analysis of responses. We obtained a significantly lower positive response from the 264 females who completed the questionnaire in the obstetrical clinic (55% volunteers for biobank and 52% for contact). We demonstrate that it is possible to establish a research permissions registry using the EHR portal and clinic-based workflows. This patient-centric, population-based, opt-in approach documents preferences in the EHR, allowing linkage of these preferences to health record information.