针对从事贸易和劳动职业的男性的减肥临床试验招募信息的随机比较

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Melissa M. Crane, Bradley M. Appelhans
{"title":"针对从事贸易和劳动职业的男性的减肥临床试验招募信息的随机比较","authors":"Melissa M. Crane,&nbsp;Bradley M. Appelhans","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Engaging diverse populations in clinical trials is vital to research. This study evaluated the effects of varying recruitment messages for a clinical trial.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The messages were evaluated in a randomly assigned, factorial design that tested enhanced trust (vs. standard) and participant endorsement (vs. standard) messaging.</p><p>Four postcards were developed and randomly assigned to 4000 potential participants' addresses. Except for the messages of interest, the cards were identical, and participants were directed to four identical study websites and screening forms. Outcomes include unique website visits, visit conversion rate, screening forms completed, and participants randomized into the parent study.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Study websites received 74 visits (range by message type 9 to 34). There was no significant difference by message type (p = 0.79). Online screening forms were completed by 15 participants (range by message type 0–6), representing a conversion rate of 20.3% of website visits. Seven participants were randomized into the study in response to the postcards (range by message type 0 to 3; 46.7% of screenings). Overall, 0.2% of individuals who received a postcard were randomized into the study.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite developing recruitment messages with participant input, the enhanced messages did not yield a greater response than standard messages. However, this method of evaluating recruitment messages shows promise.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 101289"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245186542400036X/pdfft?md5=5fd0263c69d99deaa0e076799e9e363c&pid=1-s2.0-S245186542400036X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomized comparison of recruitment messages for a weight loss clinical trial targeting men working in trade and labor occupations\",\"authors\":\"Melissa M. Crane,&nbsp;Bradley M. Appelhans\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101289\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Engaging diverse populations in clinical trials is vital to research. This study evaluated the effects of varying recruitment messages for a clinical trial.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The messages were evaluated in a randomly assigned, factorial design that tested enhanced trust (vs. standard) and participant endorsement (vs. standard) messaging.</p><p>Four postcards were developed and randomly assigned to 4000 potential participants' addresses. Except for the messages of interest, the cards were identical, and participants were directed to four identical study websites and screening forms. Outcomes include unique website visits, visit conversion rate, screening forms completed, and participants randomized into the parent study.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Study websites received 74 visits (range by message type 9 to 34). There was no significant difference by message type (p = 0.79). Online screening forms were completed by 15 participants (range by message type 0–6), representing a conversion rate of 20.3% of website visits. Seven participants were randomized into the study in response to the postcards (range by message type 0 to 3; 46.7% of screenings). Overall, 0.2% of individuals who received a postcard were randomized into the study.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite developing recruitment messages with participant input, the enhanced messages did not yield a greater response than standard messages. However, this method of evaluating recruitment messages shows promise.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications\",\"volume\":\"39 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101289\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245186542400036X/pdfft?md5=5fd0263c69d99deaa0e076799e9e363c&pid=1-s2.0-S245186542400036X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245186542400036X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245186542400036X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景吸引不同人群参与临床试验对研究至关重要。本研究评估了不同临床试验招募信息的效果。方法采用随机分配、因子设计的方法评估了这些信息,测试了增强信任(与标准)和参与者认可(与标准)信息。除感兴趣的信息外,明信片的内容完全相同,参与者被引导至四个相同的研究网站和筛选表格。结果包括网站唯一访问量、访问转化率、筛查表格完成情况以及被随机分配到母体研究中的参与者。不同信息类型之间没有明显差异(p = 0.79)。15名参与者填写了在线筛查表(信息类型范围为0-6),网站访问转化率为20.3%。有 7 名参与者在收到明信片后被随机纳入研究(信息类型范围为 0 至 3;占筛查人数的 46.7%)。总体而言,收到明信片的人中有 0.2% 随机进入了研究。结论尽管根据参与者的意见制定了招募信息,但增强型信息并没有比标准信息产生更多的响应。不过,这种评估招募信息的方法还是很有前景的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A randomized comparison of recruitment messages for a weight loss clinical trial targeting men working in trade and labor occupations

Background

Engaging diverse populations in clinical trials is vital to research. This study evaluated the effects of varying recruitment messages for a clinical trial.

Methods

The messages were evaluated in a randomly assigned, factorial design that tested enhanced trust (vs. standard) and participant endorsement (vs. standard) messaging.

Four postcards were developed and randomly assigned to 4000 potential participants' addresses. Except for the messages of interest, the cards were identical, and participants were directed to four identical study websites and screening forms. Outcomes include unique website visits, visit conversion rate, screening forms completed, and participants randomized into the parent study.

Results

Study websites received 74 visits (range by message type 9 to 34). There was no significant difference by message type (p = 0.79). Online screening forms were completed by 15 participants (range by message type 0–6), representing a conversion rate of 20.3% of website visits. Seven participants were randomized into the study in response to the postcards (range by message type 0 to 3; 46.7% of screenings). Overall, 0.2% of individuals who received a postcard were randomized into the study.

Conclusion

Despite developing recruitment messages with participant input, the enhanced messages did not yield a greater response than standard messages. However, this method of evaluating recruitment messages shows promise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
×
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