Using patient monetary incentives and electronically derived patient lists to recruit patients to a clinical trial

Mack Ruffin, Donald E. Nease

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To report using electronic medical record (EMR) data to identify patients eligible for a clinical trial and the impact of providing an honorarium and deadline on accrual. Methods: Six practices using a common EMR participated in a cluster-randomized trial testing a self-administered, web-based familial risk assessment tool. EMR-derived lists of eligible patients were made available for provider review. An honorarium and deadline for responding in the patient recruitment letter were implemented in the last half of the recruitment process. Results: We identified 22,376 potentially eligible patients. Lists not returned by providers accounted for 9840 (44%) patients. We mailed invitations to 11,956 patients; 2398 (20%) requested more information and a consent document, 1489 (12.5%) consented to participate, and 1305 (11%) completed the baseline data collection. Patients receiving the additional $2 and a deadline compared with those receiving the personal invitation alone had significantly higher interest in participating (25% vs. 17%, P = .0001) but were less likely to complete baseline data collection (57% vs. 65% P = .01). Once consented, 85% completed the study with no significant difference by recruitment approach. Conclusions: Using EMR data reduces the burden to identify potentially eligible patients. However, some providers still did not review and return the lists. Adding a $2 incentive and deadline for responding did not improve the rate of eligible patients consenting and completing the study. Other patient recruitment methods to get better response by providers and population from primary care offices must be explored.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)569-575
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2011

Fingerprint

Motivation
Clinical Trials
Electronic Health Records
Patient Selection
Consent Forms
Primary Health Care
Population

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Family Practice

Cite this

@article{7890bbcea16340e59d52a7dce919d962,
title = "Using patient monetary incentives and electronically derived patient lists to recruit patients to a clinical trial",
abstract = "Purpose: To report using electronic medical record (EMR) data to identify patients eligible for a clinical trial and the impact of providing an honorarium and deadline on accrual. Methods: Six practices using a common EMR participated in a cluster-randomized trial testing a self-administered, web-based familial risk assessment tool. EMR-derived lists of eligible patients were made available for provider review. An honorarium and deadline for responding in the patient recruitment letter were implemented in the last half of the recruitment process. Results: We identified 22,376 potentially eligible patients. Lists not returned by providers accounted for 9840 (44{\%}) patients. We mailed invitations to 11,956 patients; 2398 (20{\%}) requested more information and a consent document, 1489 (12.5{\%}) consented to participate, and 1305 (11{\%}) completed the baseline data collection. Patients receiving the additional $2 and a deadline compared with those receiving the personal invitation alone had significantly higher interest in participating (25{\%} vs. 17{\%}, P = .0001) but were less likely to complete baseline data collection (57{\%} vs. 65{\%} P = .01). Once consented, 85{\%} completed the study with no significant difference by recruitment approach. Conclusions: Using EMR data reduces the burden to identify potentially eligible patients. However, some providers still did not review and return the lists. Adding a $2 incentive and deadline for responding did not improve the rate of eligible patients consenting and completing the study. Other patient recruitment methods to get better response by providers and population from primary care offices must be explored.",
author = "Mack Ruffin and Nease, {Donald E.}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.100169",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "569--575",
journal = "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine",
issn = "1557-2625",
publisher = "American Board of Family Medicine",
number = "5",

}

Using patient monetary incentives and electronically derived patient lists to recruit patients to a clinical trial. / Ruffin, Mack; Nease, Donald E.

In: Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Vol. 24, No. 5, 01.09.2011, p. 569-575.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using patient monetary incentives and electronically derived patient lists to recruit patients to a clinical trial

AU - Ruffin, Mack

AU - Nease, Donald E.

PY - 2011/9/1

Y1 - 2011/9/1

N2 - Purpose: To report using electronic medical record (EMR) data to identify patients eligible for a clinical trial and the impact of providing an honorarium and deadline on accrual. Methods: Six practices using a common EMR participated in a cluster-randomized trial testing a self-administered, web-based familial risk assessment tool. EMR-derived lists of eligible patients were made available for provider review. An honorarium and deadline for responding in the patient recruitment letter were implemented in the last half of the recruitment process. Results: We identified 22,376 potentially eligible patients. Lists not returned by providers accounted for 9840 (44%) patients. We mailed invitations to 11,956 patients; 2398 (20%) requested more information and a consent document, 1489 (12.5%) consented to participate, and 1305 (11%) completed the baseline data collection. Patients receiving the additional $2 and a deadline compared with those receiving the personal invitation alone had significantly higher interest in participating (25% vs. 17%, P = .0001) but were less likely to complete baseline data collection (57% vs. 65% P = .01). Once consented, 85% completed the study with no significant difference by recruitment approach. Conclusions: Using EMR data reduces the burden to identify potentially eligible patients. However, some providers still did not review and return the lists. Adding a $2 incentive and deadline for responding did not improve the rate of eligible patients consenting and completing the study. Other patient recruitment methods to get better response by providers and population from primary care offices must be explored.

AB - Purpose: To report using electronic medical record (EMR) data to identify patients eligible for a clinical trial and the impact of providing an honorarium and deadline on accrual. Methods: Six practices using a common EMR participated in a cluster-randomized trial testing a self-administered, web-based familial risk assessment tool. EMR-derived lists of eligible patients were made available for provider review. An honorarium and deadline for responding in the patient recruitment letter were implemented in the last half of the recruitment process. Results: We identified 22,376 potentially eligible patients. Lists not returned by providers accounted for 9840 (44%) patients. We mailed invitations to 11,956 patients; 2398 (20%) requested more information and a consent document, 1489 (12.5%) consented to participate, and 1305 (11%) completed the baseline data collection. Patients receiving the additional $2 and a deadline compared with those receiving the personal invitation alone had significantly higher interest in participating (25% vs. 17%, P = .0001) but were less likely to complete baseline data collection (57% vs. 65% P = .01). Once consented, 85% completed the study with no significant difference by recruitment approach. Conclusions: Using EMR data reduces the burden to identify potentially eligible patients. However, some providers still did not review and return the lists. Adding a $2 incentive and deadline for responding did not improve the rate of eligible patients consenting and completing the study. Other patient recruitment methods to get better response by providers and population from primary care offices must be explored.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052871405&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052871405&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.100169

DO - 10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.100169

M3 - Article

C2 - 21900440

AN - SCOPUS:80052871405

VL - 24

SP - 569

EP - 575

JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

SN - 1557-2625

IS - 5

ER -