Heerman William J, Jackson Natalie, Roumie Christianne L, Harris Paul A, Rosenbloom S Trent, Pulley Jill, Wilkins Consuelo H, Williams Neely A, Crenshaw David, Leak Cardella, Scherdin Jon, Muñoz Daniel, Bachmann Justin, Rothman Russell L, Kripalani Sunil
Center for Health Services Research, Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Ave, Nashville, TN 37232, USA; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Center for Health Services Research, Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Ave, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2017 Nov;62:50-55. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2017.08.006. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
The objective of this study was to report survey response rates and demographic characteristics of eight recruitment approaches to determine acceptability and effectiveness of large-scale patient recruitment among various populations.
We conducted a cross sectional analysis of survey data from two large cohorts. Patients were recruited from the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network using clinic-based recruitment, research registries, and mail, phone, and email approaches. Response rates are reported as patients who consented for the survey divided by the number of eligible patients approached.
We contacted more than 90,000 patients and 13,197 patients completed surveys. Median age was 56.3years (IQR 40.9, 67.4). Racial/ethnic distribution was 84.1% White, non-Hispanic; 9.9% Black, non-Hispanic; 1.8% Hispanic; and 4.0% other, non-Hispanic. Face-to-face recruitment had the highest response rate of 94.3%, followed by participants who "opted-in" to a registry (76%). The lowest response rate was for unsolicited emails from the clinic (6.1%). Face-to-face recruitment enrolled a higher percentage of participants who self-identified as Black, non-Hispanic compared to other approaches (18.6% face-to-face vs. 8.4% for email).
Technology-enabled recruitment approaches such as registries and emails are effective for recruiting but may yield less racial/ethnic diversity compared to traditional, more time-intensive approaches.
本研究的目的是报告八种招募方法的调查回复率和人口统计学特征,以确定在不同人群中进行大规模患者招募的可接受性和有效性。
我们对来自两个大型队列的调查数据进行了横断面分析。使用基于诊所的招募、研究登记以及邮件、电话和电子邮件等方法,从中南部临床数据研究网络招募患者。回复率的计算方法是同意参与调查的患者数量除以被邀请的符合条件的患者数量。
我们联系了超过90,000名患者,其中13,197名患者完成了调查。年龄中位数为56.3岁(四分位间距为40.9,67.4)。种族/族裔分布为:84.1%为非西班牙裔白人;9.9%为非西班牙裔黑人;1.8%为西班牙裔;4.0%为其他非西班牙裔。面对面招募的回复率最高,为94.3%,其次是“选择加入”登记册的参与者(76%)。回复率最低的是诊所主动发送的电子邮件(6.1%)。与其他方法相比,面对面招募中自我认定为非西班牙裔黑人的参与者比例更高(面对面招募为18.6%,电子邮件招募为8.4%)。
与传统的、耗时更长的方法相比,诸如登记册和电子邮件等基于技术的招募方法在招募方面是有效的,但可能导致种族/族裔多样性较低。