Evidence mapPaperPMID 41160069Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Improving Recruitment Into Research Studies via Electronically Collected Patient-Entered Data: Mixed Methods Study.

Irene Katzan, W H Wilson Tang, Andrew Schuster, Ryan Honomichl, Misti Allison, Renee Feldman, Michelle Gandolf, Benjamin Walter, Brittany Lapin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Irene KatzanCenter for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9006-7780
W H Wilson TangHeart Vascular and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8335-735X
Andrew SchusterCenter for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0907-3199
Ryan HonomichlCenter for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0535-4268
Misti AllisonMarket Research and Analytics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9364-5912
Renee FeldmanLieberman Research, Inc, Great Neck, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5612-602X
Michelle GandolfMarket Research and Analytics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9364-0631
Benjamin WalterCenter for Neurological Restoration, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-6873
Brittany LapinCenter for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-2282

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient recruitment remains a critical challenge in clinical research. Although the integration of electronically collected patient-entered data within clinical practices enables innovative recruitment approaches, existing methods present challenges such as increased patient burden and potential violation of autonomy. A more nuanced approach involves identifying patient attributes associated with higher propensity for research participation, enabling research teams to efficiently prioritize outreach efforts.

objectiveThis study aims to (1) develop patient-reported questions reflecting perceptions about research participation and (2) determine whether patient responses are predictive of interest in joining a precision medicine registry.

methodsThis mixed methods study used an exploratory sequential design in 2 phases. Phase 1 involved cognitive interviews with 32 patients recruited through the Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Partners program to develop "research perception" questions. Participants evaluated 9 candidate questions that were based on a literature review of research participation factors. Three questions were selected for implementation. Phase 2 was a cross-sectional cohort study incorporating these 3 questions into routine electronic questionnaires completed by primary care patients through the patient portal. The study population included 1077 patients who completed both "research perception" and "research recruitment" questions between August 2018 and April 2019. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and multivariable logistic regression models evaluated associations while adjusting for demographic and health factors.

resultsPhase 1 revealed strong research support among participants, with 97% (31/32) agreeing that research should be part of the institution's mission and 100% (32/32) affirming that research enhances patient care. Phase 2 included 1077 patients (mean age 48.3, SD 16.3 years; 625/1065 female, 58.68%; 661/1005 White, 65.77%), of whom 278 (25.8%) expressed interest in being contacted about the precision medicine registry. Patients expressing interest were older and had worse self-reported health, more depressive symptoms, and greater social needs. "Strongly agree" and "very important" responses to any "research perception" question were significantly associated with study interest, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 6.36 (95% CI 2.77-14.6) to 17.6 (95% CI 5.08-61.1; P<.001). The "research perception" questions demonstrated high sensitivity (>80%) but limited specificity (24%-31%).

conclusionsPatient-reported questions assessing research participation likelihood can help identify patients more likely to enroll in clinical studies. This approach enables effective recruitment prioritization while preserving patient autonomy and reducing patient burden. High sensitivity makes these questions valuable as screening tools, although limited specificity suggests use for prioritizing rather than excluding participants. Further validation across different trial types and populations is warranted.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchElectronic Health RecordsPatient SelectionAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesclinical researchpatient recruitmentpatient-reported outcomesqualitative evaluationsurvey

Identifiers

PMID41160069
PMCPMC12612641

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.