Evidence mapPaperPMID 39267164Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Development of the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) intervention to support recruitment for neonatal clinical trials: an intervention mapping guided approach.

Elliott Mark Weiss, Megan M Gray, Linda K Ko, Devan M Duenas, Ellie Oslin, Stephanie A Kraft

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Elliott Mark WeissTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children's Research Institute, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, M/S FA.2.113 Neonatology, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA. emweiss@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-9638
Megan M GrayTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children's Research Institute, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, M/S FA.2.113 Neonatology, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA.
Linda K KoDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Devan M DuenasTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children's Research Institute, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, M/S FA.2.113 Neonatology, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA.
Ellie OslinTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children's Research Institute, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, M/S FA.2.113 Neonatology, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA.
Stephanie A KraftDepartment of Bioethics and Decision Sciences, Geisinger College of Health Sciences, Danville, PA, USA.

Funding

Improving Diversity in Neonatal Clinical Trial EnrollmentK23HD103872 · NICHD · SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · 2023 to 2025
$321k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD103872
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment for neonatal clinical trials can be particularly challenging. Low enrollment rates bias the research population and decrease generalizability of findings. We identified a critical need for an intervention to improve how researchers recruit for neonatal clinical trials. Working within the US neonatal research context, we developed the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) Intervention, which had two overarching goals: to improve the recruitment experience for all parents, focusing on minoritized populations, and to increase participation, focusing on decreasing disparities in research participation.

methodsWe used intervention mapping (IM) to guide all steps of intervention development. IM is a planning framework that provides a systematic process and detailed protocol for step-by-step decision-making for intervention development, implementation, and evaluation.

resultsWe performed IM's six steps. In step 1, we convened two stakeholder groups, a parent panel and an expert panel, who provided guidance through development of all BRIEF components. Through a recent systematic review, empirical data collected by our team, and consultations with the panels, we identified key determinants (barriers and facilitators) of low enrollment rates and research team members as change agents. In step 2, we iteratively refined our list of key factors to include and linked determinants of behavior changes to these performance objectives. In step 3, we chose three theories (social cognitive theory, theory of information processing, and the trans-theoretical model), methods from identified practical applications suitable for the population (research team members) and the context (busy research NICU teams). In step 4, we developed and refined the intervention components, including self-guided pre-work and a single in-person session. In step 5, we identified the Darbepoetin plus slow-release intravenous iron trial as our partner study in which to pilot BRIEF. In step 6, we developed a multi-stage evaluation plan that included five distinct levels of outcomes.

conclusionsThis manuscript shares our rationale and processes for the creation of a research team member-facing intervention aiming to improve recruitment processes for neonatal clinical trials. Our approach can inform those aiming to improve recruitment for neonatal clinical trials and those who may be considering use of IM within similar contexts.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionHumansInfant, NewbornParentsResearch DesignResearch PersonnelStakeholder ParticipationInterventionNeonatal clinical trialsRecruitmentResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID39267164
PMCPMC11395641

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.