ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
A randomized comparison of recruitment messages for a weight loss clinical trial targeting men working in trade and labor occupations.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Messaging Modality and Content for Recruitment of Research Participants: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Feasibility and Acceptability of Behavioral Weight Loss Programs for Men in Trade and Labor Occupations: A Pilot Study.Obesity science & practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Engaging diverse populations in clinical trials is vital to research. This study evaluated the effects of varying recruitment messages for a clinical trial. Methods: The messages were evaluated in a randomly assigned, factorial design that tested enhanced trust (vs. standard) and participant endorsement (vs. standard) messaging.Four postcards were developed and randomly assigned to 4000 potential participants' addresses. Except for the messages of interest, the cards were identical, and participants were directed to four identical study websites and screening forms. Outcomes include unique website visits, visit conversion rate, screening forms completed, and participants randomized into the parent study. Results: Study websites received 74 visits (range by message type 9 to 34). There was no significant difference by message type (p = 0.79). Online screening forms were completed by 15 participants (range by message type 0-6), representing a conversion rate of 20.3% of website visits. Seven participants were randomized into the study in response to the postcards (range by message type 0 to 3; 46.7% of screenings). Overall, 0.2% of individuals who received a postcard were randomized into the study. Conclusion: Despite developing recruitment messages with participant input, the enhanced messages did not yield a greater response than standard messages. However, this method of evaluating recruitment messages shows promise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.