Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Informatics Approaches to Participant Recruitment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Research Informatics

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nathan DG, Wilson JD. Clinical research and the NIH – a report card. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(19):1860–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mowry M, Constantinou D. Electronic health records: a magic pill? Appl Clin Trials. 2007; 2(1). http://appliedclinicaltrialsonline.findpharma.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=401622.

  4. Canavan C, Grossman S, Kush R, Walker J. Integrating recruitment into eHealth patient records. Appl Clin Trials. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sinackevich N, Tassignon J-P. Speeding the critical path. Appl Clin Trials. 2004;31:241–54.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sullivan J. Subject recruitment and retention: barriers to success. Appl Clin Trials. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schain W. Barriers to clinical trials, part 2: knowledge and attitudes of potential participants. Cancer. 1994;74:2666–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mansour E. Barriers to clinical trials, part 3: knowledge and attitudes of health care providers. Cancer. 1994;74:2672–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Califf R. Clinical research sites – the underappreciated component of the clinical research system. JAMA. 2009;302(18):2025–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kush B. The protocol is at the heart of every clinical trial. 2007. http://www.ngpharma.com/pastissue/article.asp?art=25518&issue=143. Accessed Aug 2011.

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Protege. 2007. http://protege.stanford.edu/. Accessed Aug 2011.

  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. Aronis J, Cooper G, Kayaalp M, Buchanan B. Identifying patient subgroups with simple Bayes. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:658–62.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Weiner DL, Butte AJ, Hibberd PL, Fleisher GR. Computerized recruiting for clinical trials in real time. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(2):242–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. http://www.cms.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/Downloads/HIPAALaw.pdf. Accessed Aug 2011.

  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. Physician Data Query (PDQ). 2007. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cancerdatabase. Accessed Aug 2011.

  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. Cohen E, et al. caMATCH: a patient matching tool for clinical trials, caBIG annual meeting, Washington, DC; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  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; http://crisummit2010.amia.org/files/symposium2008/S14_Niland.pdf, Accessed on 13 Dec 2011.

  36. Trialx. 2010. http://www.trialx.com. Accessed Aug 2011.

  37. Harris PA, Lane L, Biaggioni I. Clinical research subject recruitment: the volunteer for Vanderbilt research program www.vanderbilthealth.com/clinicaltrials/13133. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(6):608–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Parker CG, Embley DW. Generating medical logic modules for clinical trial eligibility criteria. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:964.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. Lin J-H, Haug PJ. Data preparation framework for preprocessing clinical data in data mining. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:489–93.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Kahn MG. Integrating electronic health records and clinical trials. 2007. http://www.esi-bethesda.com/ncrrworkshops/clinicalResearch/pdf/MichaelKahnPaper.pdf. Accessed Aug 2011.

  56. Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. 1995;7(1):57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Weng C, Tu SW, Sim I, Richesson R. Formal representation of eligibility criteria: a literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(3):451–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Friedman C, Hripcsak G. Natural language processing and its future in medicine. Acad Med. 1999;74:890–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Friedman C, Chen L. Extracting phenotypic information from the literature via natural language. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107:758–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Baud R, Lovis C, Ruch P, Rassinoux A. Conceptual search in electronic patient record. Medinfo. 2001;84:156–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Brailer DJ. The decade of health information technology: delivering consumer-centric and information-rich health care. Framework for strategic action. 2004. http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/frameworkchapters.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2005.

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Friedman C. Towards a comprehensive medical language processing system: methods and issues. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997:595–9.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Conway PH, Commentary CC. Transformation of health care at the front line. JAMA. 2009;301(7):763–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Chunhua Weng PhD

  2. Regenstrief Institute, Inc, and Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Peter J. Embi MD, MS

Authors
  1. Chunhua Weng PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Embi MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chunhua Weng PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA

    Rachel L. Richesson

  2. School of Information, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    James E. Andrews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Weng, C., Embi, P.J. (2019). Informatics Approaches to Participant Recruitment. In: Richesson, R., Andrews, J. (eds) Clinical Research Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98779-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98779-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98778-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98779-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation