RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Clin Transl Sci. 2021 May;14(3):880-889. doi: 10.1111/cts.12950. Epub 2021 Feb 13.
Meeting recruitment targets for clinical trials and health research studies is a notable challenge. Unsuccessful efforts to recruit participants from traditionally underserved populations can limit who benefits from scientific discovery, thus perpetuating inequities in health outcomes and access to care. In this study, we evaluated direct mail and email outreach campaigns designed to recruit women who gave birth in North Carolina for a statewide research study offering expanded newborn screening for a panel of rare health conditions. Of the 54,887 women who gave birth in North Carolina from September 28, 2018, through March 19, 2019, and were eligible to be included on the study's contact lists, we had access to a mailing address for 97.9% and an email address for 6.3%. Rural women were less likely to have sufficient contact information available, but this amounted to less than a one percentage point difference by urbanicity. Native American women were less likely to have an email address on record; however, we did not find a similar disparity when recruitment using direct-mail letters and postcards was concerned. Although we sent letters and emails in roughly equal proportion by urbanicity and race/ethnicity, we found significant differences in enrollment across demographic subgroups. Controlling for race/ethnicity and urbanicity, we found that direct-mail letters and emails were effective recruitment methods. The enrollment rate among women who were sent a recruitment letter was 4.1%, and this rate increased to 5.0% among women who were also sent an email invitation. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Under-representation by traditionally underserved populations in clinical trials and health research is a challenge that may in part reflect inequitable opportunities to participate. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? Are direct-mail and email outreach strategies effective for reaching and recruiting women from traditionally underserved and rural populations to participate in large-scale, population-based research? WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Despite sending recruitment letters and email invitations in roughly equal proportion by urbanicity and race/ethnicity, women living in rural areas were less likely to enroll (2.8%) than women from urban areas (4.2%). Additionally, enrollment rates decreased as the probability that women were members of a racial or ethnic minority group increased. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Results from this study might encourage researchers to take a holistic and participant-centered view of barriers to study enrollment that may disproportionately affect underserved communities, including differences in willingness to participate, trust, and access to resources needed for uptake.
招募临床试验和健康研究参与者的目标是一个显著的挑战。未能成功招募来自传统服务不足人群的参与者,可能会限制从科学发现中受益的人群,从而使健康结果和获得护理方面的不平等现象持续存在。在这项研究中,我们评估了旨在招募在北卡罗来纳州分娩的妇女的直邮和电子邮件外展活动,这些妇女参加了一项全州性的研究,为一组罕见的健康状况提供了扩展的新生儿筛查。在 2018 年 9 月 28 日至 2019 年 3 月 19 日期间在北卡罗来纳州分娩且有资格列入研究联络名单的 54887 名妇女中,我们有 97.9%的人可以获得邮寄地址,有 6.3%的人可以获得电子邮件地址。农村妇女获得足够联系信息的可能性较低,但按城市人口密度计算,这一比例相差不到一个百分点。美洲原住民妇女的记录中不太可能有电子邮件地址;然而,当使用直邮信件和明信片进行招募时,我们没有发现类似的差异。尽管我们按照城市和种族/族裔的比例大致平均地发送信件和电子邮件,但我们发现不同人口统计学亚组的入组率存在显著差异。在控制了种族/族裔和城市人口密度后,我们发现直邮信件和电子邮件是有效的招募方法。收到招募信的妇女的入组率为 4.1%,而同时收到电子邮件邀请的妇女的入组率增加到 5.0%。研究重点 关于这个主题,目前的知识水平是什么? 在临床试验和健康研究中,传统服务不足人群代表性不足是一个挑战,这在一定程度上可能反映了参与机会的不平等。 这项研究解决了什么问题? 直邮和电子邮件外展策略是否可有效接触和招募来自传统服务不足和农村地区的妇女,以参与大规模的基于人群的研究? 这项研究为我们的知识增加了什么? 尽管按城市人口密度和种族/族裔比例大致平均地发送了招募信和电子邮件邀请,但居住在农村地区的妇女的入组率(2.8%)低于城市地区的妇女(4.2%)。此外,随着妇女成为种族或族裔少数群体的可能性增加,入组率也会下降。 这将如何改变临床药理学或转化科学? 这项研究的结果可能会鼓励研究人员从整体和以参与者为中心的角度来看待影响参与研究的障碍,这些障碍可能会不成比例地影响服务不足的社区,包括参与意愿、信任和获得参与所需资源方面的差异。