Informatics Approaches to Participant Recruitment

  • Chunhua WengEmail author
  • Peter J. Embi
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Clinical research is essential to the advancement of medical science and is a priority for academic health centers, research funding agencies, and industries working to develop and deploy new treatments. In addition, the growing rate of biomedical discoveries makes conducting high-quality and efficient clinical research increasingly important. Participant recruitment continues to represent a major bottleneck in the successful conduct of human studies. Barriers to clinical research enrollment include patient factors and physician factors, as well as recruitment challenges added by patient privacy regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the USA. Another major deterrent to enrollment is the challenge of identifying eligible patients, which has traditionally been a labor-intensive procedure. In this chapter, we review the informatics interventions for improving the efficiency and accuracy of eligibility determination and trial recruitment that have been used in the past and that are maturing as the underlying technologies improve, and we summarize the common sociotechnical challenges that need continuous dedicated work in the future.


Internet-based patient matching systems Research recruitment workflows Informatics interventions in clinical research recruitment Computerized clinical trial EHR-based recruitment 


  1. 1.
    Nathan DG, Wilson JD. Clinical research and the NIH – a report card. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(19):1860–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Moy E, Blumenthal D. Status of clinical research in academic health centers: views from the research leadership. JAMA. 2001;286(7):800–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mowry M, Constantinou D. Electronic health records: a magic pill? Appl Clin Trials. 2007; 2(1).
  4. 4.
    Canavan C, Grossman S, Kush R, Walker J. Integrating recruitment into eHealth patient records. Appl Clin Trials. 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sinackevich N, Tassignon J-P. Speeding the critical path. Appl Clin Trials. 2004;31:241–54.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sullivan J. Subject recruitment and retention: barriers to success. Appl Clin Trials. 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schain W. Barriers to clinical trials, part 2: knowledge and attitudes of potential participants. Cancer. 1994;74:2666–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mansour E. Barriers to clinical trials, part 3: knowledge and attitudes of health care providers. Cancer. 1994;74:2672–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fink E, Kokku PK, Nikiforou S, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, Krischer JP. Selection of patients for clinical trials: an interactive web-based system. Artif Intell Med. 2004;31(3):241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlson R, Tu S, Lane N, Lai T, Kemper C, Musen M, Shortliffe E. Computer-based screening of patients with HIV/AIDS for clinical-trial eligibility. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1995. Doc No 179.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breitfeld PP, Weisburd M, Overhage JM, Sledge G Jr, Tierney WM. Pilot study of a point-of-use decision support tool for cancer clinical trials eligibility. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(6):466–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ash N, Ogunyemi O, Zeng Q, Ohno-Machado L. Finding appropriate clinical trials: evaluating encoded eligibility criteria with incomplete data. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001:27–31.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papaconstantinou C, Theocharous G, Mahadevan S. An expert system for assigning patients into clinical trials based on Bayesian networks. J Med Syst. 1998;22(3):189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson DS, Oberteuffer R, Dorman T. Sepsis alert and diagnostic system: integrating clinical systems to enhance study coordinator efficiency. Comput Inform Nurs. 2003;21(1):22–6; quiz 27–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tu SW, Kemper CA, Lane NM, Carlson RW, Musen MA. A methodology for determining patients’ eligibility for clinical trials. Methods Inf Med. 1993;32(4):317–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ohno-Machado L, Wang SJ, Mar P, Boxwala AA. Decision support for clinical trial eligibility determination in breast cancer. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:340–4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Califf R. Clinical research sites – the underappreciated component of the clinical research system. JAMA. 2009;302(18):2025–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kush B. The protocol is at the heart of every clinical trial. 2007. Accessed Aug 2011.
  19. 19.
    Gennari J, Sklar D, Silva J. Cross-tool communication: from protocol authoring to eligibility determination. In: Proceedings of the AMIA’01 symposium, Washington, DC; 2001. p. 199–203.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Musen MA, Carlson RW, Fagan LM, Deresinski SC. T-HELPER: automated support for community-based clinical research. In: 16th annual symposium on computer applications in medical care, Washington, DC; 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seroussi B, Bouaud J. Using OncoDoc as a computer-based eligibility screening system to improve accrual onto breast cancer clinical trials. Artif Intell Med. 2003;29(1):153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Protege. 2007. Accessed Aug 2011.
  23. 23.
    Ohno-Machado L, Parra E, Henry SB, Tu SW, Musen MA. AIDS2: a decision-support tool for decreasing physicians’ uncertainty regarding patient eligibility for HIV treatment protocols. In: Proceedings of 17th annual symposium on computer applications in medical care, Washington, DC; 1993. p. 429–33.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aronis J, Cooper G, Kayaalp M, Buchanan B. Identifying patient subgroups with simple Bayes. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:658–62.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cooper G, Buchanan B, Kayaalp M, Saul M, Vries J. Using computer modeling to help identify patient subgroups in clinical data repositories. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:180–4.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Musen MA, Carlson RW, Fagan LM, Deresinski SC, Shortliffe EH. T-HELPER: automated support for community-based clinical research. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1992:719–23.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carlson RW, Tu SW, Lane NM, Lai TL, Kemper CA, Musen MA, Shortliffe EH. Computer-based screening of patients with HIV/AIDS for clinical-trial eligibility. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1995;Doc No 179:[3347 words; 3332 paragraphs].Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiner DL, Butte AJ, Hibberd PL, Fleisher GR. Computerized recruiting for clinical trials in real time. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(2):242–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Butte AJ, Weinstein DA, Kohane IS. Enrolling patients into clinical trials faster using RealTime Recuiting. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000:111–5.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Accessed Aug 2011.
  31. 31.
    Afrin LB, Oates JC, Boyd CK, Daniels MS. Leveraging of open EMR architecture for clinical trial accrual. Proc AMIA Symp. 2003;2003:16–20.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Physician Data Query (PDQ). 2007. Accessed Aug 2011.
  33. 33.
    Assuring a health dimension for the National Information Infrastructure: a concept paper by the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics. Presented to the US Department of Health and Human Services Data Council, Washington, DC; 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen E, et al. caMATCH: a patient matching tool for clinical trials, caBIG annual meeting, Washington, DC; 2005.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Niland J. Integration of Clinical Research and EHR: eligibility coding standards, podium presentation to the 2010 AMIA Clinical Research Informatics Summit meeting, San Francisco;, Accessed on 13 Dec 2011.
  36. 36.
    Trialx. 2010. Accessed Aug 2011.
  37. 37.
    Harris PA, Lane L, Biaggioni I. Clinical research subject recruitment: the volunteer for Vanderbilt research program J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(6):608–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Samuels MH, et al. Effectiveness and cost of recruiting healthy volunteers for clinical research studies using an electronic patient portal: a randomized study. J Clin Transl Sci [Internet]. 2017;1(6):366–72. 2018/04/23. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Embi PJ, Jain A, Clark J, Bizjack S, Hornung R, Harris CM. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Embi PJ, Jain A, Harris CM. Physicians’ perceptions of an electronic health record-based clinical trial alert approach to subject recruitment: a survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Embi PJ, Lieberman MI, Ricciardi TN. Early development of a clinical trial alert system in an EHR used in small practices: toward generalizability. AMIA Spring Congress. Phoenix; 2006.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rollman BL, Fischer GS, Zhu F, Belnap BH. Comparison of electronic physician prompts versus waitroom case-finding on clinical trial enrollment. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(4):447–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grundmeier RW, Swietlik M, Bell LM. Research subject enrollment by primary care pediatricians using an electronic health record. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;2007:289–93.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kamal J, Pasuparthi K, Rogers P, Buskirk J, Mekhjian H. Using an information warehouse to screen patients for clinical trials: a prototype. Proc of AMIA. 2005:1004.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thadani SR, Weng C, Bigger JT, Ennever JF, Wajngurt D. Electronic screening improves efficiency in clinical trial recruitment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(6):869–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weng C, Bigger J, Busacca L, Wilcox A, Getaneh A. Comparing the effectiveness of a clinical data warehouse and a clinical registry for supporting clinical trial recruitment: a case study. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 2010:867–71.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, Johnson SB, Catanese V, Tilson H, Getz K, Larson EL, Scheinberg D, Reece EA, Slavkin H, Dobs A, Grebb J, Martinez RA, Korn A, Rimoin D. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289(10):1278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Van Spall HGC, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297(11):1233–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Musen MA, Rohn JA, Fagan LM, Shortliffe EH. Knowledge engineering for a clinical trial advice system: uncovering errors in protocol specification. Bull Cancer. 1985;74:291–6.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Parker CG, Embley DW. Generating medical logic modules for clinical trial eligibility criteria. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:964.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jenders R, Sujansky W, Broverman C, Chadwick M. Towards improved knowledge sharing: assessment of the HL7 Reference Information Model to support medical logic module queries. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 1997:308–12.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lin J-H, Haug PJ. Data preparation framework for preprocessing clinical data in data mining. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:489–93.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Carlo L, Chase H, Weng C. Reconciling structured and unstructured medical problems using UMLS. Proc AMIA Fall Symp. 2010:91–5.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Li L, Chase HS, Patel CO, Friedman C, Weng C. Comparing ICD9-encoded diagnoses and NLP-processed discharge summaries for clinical trials pre-screening: a case study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;2008:404–8.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kahn MG. Integrating electronic health records and clinical trials. 2007. Accessed Aug 2011.
  56. 56.
    Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. 1995;7(1):57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ruberg S. A proposal and challenge for a new approach to integrated electronic solutions. Appl Clin Trials. 2002;2002:42–9.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chute C. The horizontal and vertical nature of patient phenotype retrieval: new directions for clinical text processing. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:165–9.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weng C, Tu SW, Sim I, Richesson R. Formal representation of eligibility criteria: a literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(3):451–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Friedman C, Hripcsak G. Natural language processing and its future in medicine. Acad Med. 1999;74:890–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Friedman C, Chen L. Extracting phenotypic information from the literature via natural language. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107:758–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Friedman C, Kra P, Yu H, Krauthammer M, Rzhetsky A. GENIES: a natural-language processing system for the extraction of molecular pathways from journal articles. Bioinformatics. 2001;17(Supl 1):74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mendonca E, Haas J, Shagina L, Larson E, Friedman C. Extracting information on pneumonia in infants using natural language processing of radiology reports. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38(4):314–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Friedman C, Hripcsak G, Shagina L, Liu H. Representing information in patient reports using natural language processing and the extensible markup language. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(1):76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Friedman C, Shagina L, Lussier Y, Hripcsak G. Automated encoding of clinical documents based on natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(5):392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Baud R, Lovis C, Ruch P, Rassinoux A. Conceptual search in electronic patient record. Medinfo. 2001;84:156–60.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yasnoff WA, Humphreys BL, Overhage JM, Detmer DE, Brennan PF, Morris RW, Middleton B, Bates DW, Fanning JP. A consensus action agenda for achieving the national health information infrastructure. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(4):332–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brailer DJ. The decade of health information technology: delivering consumer-centric and information-rich health care. Framework for strategic action. 2004. Accessed 31 Jan 2005.
  69. 69.
    Fiszman M, Chapman W, Aronsky D, Evans R, Haug P. Automatic detection of acute bacterial pneumonia from chest X-ray reports. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fiszman M, Chapman W, Evans S, Haug P. Automatic identification of pneumonia related concepts on chest x-ray reports. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:67–71.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Friedman C. Towards a comprehensive medical language processing system: methods and issues. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997:595–9.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hripcsak G, Friedman C, Alderson P, DuMouchel W, Johnson S, Clayton P. Unlocking clinical data from narrative reports: a study of natural language processing. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122(9):681–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Conway PH, Commentary CC. Transformation of health care at the front line. JAMA. 2009;301(7):763–5. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical InformaticsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Regenstrief Institute, Inc, and Indiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations