Knowing is Half the Battle: The Factors Leading to Efficient Recruitment of Representative Samples in Schizophrenia Research.

IF 3.1 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmaceutical Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-11 DOI:10.1007/s40290-024-00545-8
Joohyun Yoon, Megan R Mayer, Tala Berro, Stephanie Brazis, Joshua T Kantrowitz
{"title":"Knowing is Half the Battle: The Factors Leading to Efficient Recruitment of Representative Samples in Schizophrenia Research.","authors":"Joohyun Yoon, Megan R Mayer, Tala Berro, Stephanie Brazis, Joshua T Kantrowitz","doi":"10.1007/s40290-024-00545-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Drug development in schizophrenia is limited by the differential scaling of the active treatment and placebo arms of a study, such that, as the number of sites increases, the magnitude of placebo response disproportionately increases. The objective of this article was to identify factors conducive to efficient recruitment as a step towards trial designs allowing recruitment of more participants per site, leading to reduced variability, and potentially a smaller placebo effect.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Using the information of 554 individuals, we calculated the percentage of individuals who were screened, consented, and retained in our research, along with rationale for nonconsent. Independent t tests and Chi-squared tests were performed to compare participant characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 273 individuals who were fully screened, 84 did not progress to the consented stage owing to various reasons, leading to a total of 189 individuals who were screened and consented and a total of 365 individuals who were either incompletely screened or not consented into a study. Individuals with an externally validated medical history showed the highest yield in being consented and retained in research as new participants. In particular, chart reviews from clinics were highly efficient (25.8%) in facilitating new participants' enrollment, even when these individuals were not actively/prospectively seeking research. The most common reason for nonconsent was difficulty in telephone or email contact. Consenting and nonconsenting participants were similar in demographics, and recruitment sources only differed in their reported substance use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Referrals and chart reviews from known clinics were the most efficient method in retaining new participants, highlighting the importance of external validation and communication between research and clinical staff within a system. Consenting participants showed no significant differences from the database as a whole, demonstrating that the study samples were representative. Future studies should aim to confirm the present findings at other academic and commercial research centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":19778,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"29-38"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-024-00545-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Drug development in schizophrenia is limited by the differential scaling of the active treatment and placebo arms of a study, such that, as the number of sites increases, the magnitude of placebo response disproportionately increases. The objective of this article was to identify factors conducive to efficient recruitment as a step towards trial designs allowing recruitment of more participants per site, leading to reduced variability, and potentially a smaller placebo effect.

Patients and methods: Using the information of 554 individuals, we calculated the percentage of individuals who were screened, consented, and retained in our research, along with rationale for nonconsent. Independent t tests and Chi-squared tests were performed to compare participant characteristics.

Results: Out of the 273 individuals who were fully screened, 84 did not progress to the consented stage owing to various reasons, leading to a total of 189 individuals who were screened and consented and a total of 365 individuals who were either incompletely screened or not consented into a study. Individuals with an externally validated medical history showed the highest yield in being consented and retained in research as new participants. In particular, chart reviews from clinics were highly efficient (25.8%) in facilitating new participants' enrollment, even when these individuals were not actively/prospectively seeking research. The most common reason for nonconsent was difficulty in telephone or email contact. Consenting and nonconsenting participants were similar in demographics, and recruitment sources only differed in their reported substance use.

Conclusions: Referrals and chart reviews from known clinics were the most efficient method in retaining new participants, highlighting the importance of external validation and communication between research and clinical staff within a system. Consenting participants showed no significant differences from the database as a whole, demonstrating that the study samples were representative. Future studies should aim to confirm the present findings at other academic and commercial research centers.

了解是成功的一半:导致精神分裂症研究中有效招募代表性样本的因素。
背景和目的:精神分裂症的药物开发受到一项研究中积极治疗组和安慰剂组的差异比例的限制,例如,随着位点数量的增加,安慰剂反应的幅度不成比例地增加。本文的目的是确定有利于有效招募的因素,作为试验设计的一步,允许每个站点招募更多的参与者,从而减少可变性,并可能减少安慰剂效应。患者和方法:使用554个人的信息,我们计算了在我们的研究中被筛选、同意和保留的个人的百分比,以及不同意的理由。采用独立t检验和卡方检验比较受试者特征。结果:在273名完全筛选的个体中,84名由于各种原因没有进入同意阶段,导致总共189名个体被筛选并同意,总共365名个体被不完全筛选或不同意进入研究。具有外部验证病史的个体在被同意并保留作为新参与者的研究中显示出最高的收益。特别是,来自诊所的图表评论在促进新参与者入组方面效率很高(25.8%),即使这些人没有积极/前瞻性地寻求研究。不同意的最常见原因是电话或电子邮件联系困难。同意和不同意的参与者在人口统计学上是相似的,招募来源只是在他们报告的药物使用上有所不同。结论:来自已知诊所的推荐和图表审查是留住新参与者的最有效方法,突出了系统内研究人员和临床工作人员之间外部验证和沟通的重要性。同意的参与者在整个数据库中没有表现出显著差异,表明研究样本具有代表性。未来的研究应旨在证实其他学术和商业研究中心的研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Medicine
Pharmaceutical Medicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Medicine is a specialist discipline concerned with medical aspects of the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, regulation, monitoring, marketing, distribution and pricing of medicines, drug-device and drug-diagnostic combinations. The Journal disseminates information to support the community of professionals working in these highly inter-related functions. Key areas include translational medicine, clinical trial design, pharmacovigilance, clinical toxicology, drug regulation, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics and pharmacoeconomics. The Journal includes:Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on topical issues.Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by PRISMA statement.Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to wider areas of clinical research.Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pharmaceutical Medicine may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信