The use of electronic health records for recruitment in clinical trials: a mixed methods analysis of the Harmony Outcomes Electronic Health Record Ancillary Study.
Clinical trials
Electronic health records
Recruitment
Screening
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jul 2021
19 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
15
06
2020
accepted:
24
06
2021
entrez:
20
7
2021
pubmed:
21
7
2021
medline:
22
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment. We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial. Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific. While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34281607
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05397-0
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05397-0
pmc: PMC8287813
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02465515']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
465Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Sep-Oct;19(5):684-7
pubmed: 22542813
Med Care. 2013 Aug;51(8 Suppl 3):S30-7
pubmed: 23774517
Lancet. 2018 Oct 27;392(10157):1519-1529
pubmed: 30291013
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Apr 02;8:13
pubmed: 18384682
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):869-73
pubmed: 19717797
Trials. 2016 Oct 13;17(1):496
pubmed: 27733193
J Oncol Pract. 2012 Nov;8(6):365-70
pubmed: 23598846
Clin Trials. 2010 Apr;7(2):183-9
pubmed: 20338903
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:707891
pubmed: 26539523
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Apr 14;15:28
pubmed: 25881112
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jan 1;20(1):117-21
pubmed: 22955496
AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2018 May 18;2017:320-329
pubmed: 29888090
Am Heart J. 2018 Sep;203:30-38
pubmed: 30015066
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Jan;19(1-2):227-33
pubmed: 20500260