ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Usage and perceived effectiveness of recruitment techniques among clinical trials recruiters.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Effective recruitment techniques are essential for researchers to recruit and retain potential participants in studies, particularly as recruitment numbers into clinical trials have decreased. While recruitment techniques have been investigated, there is a gap in understanding the perspectives of clinical trials recruiters. This paper examines recruiters' usage and perceived effectiveness of various recruitment techniques, as well as their perspectives on related ethical issues. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 381 clinical trials recruiters. Closed-ended items examined whether recruiters had used 31 pre-defined recruitment techniques and their perceptions of the effectiveness of each technique. For techniques perceived to be highly effective or ineffective, open-ended items examined recruiter reasoning. The multiple methods analysis integrated the closed-ended and open-ended data. Results: Recruitment techniques such as Conclusions: Our findings indicate that there is significant variation in the usage of clinical trial recruitment techniques and how different recruiters view the effectiveness of each technique. The unique perspectives of those who recruit into clinical trials can help inform future decisions regarding which recruitment techniques to utilize, along with how and when to use particular recruitment techniques in an ethical manner.
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.