Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Institutions

A call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation

Rhonda G. Kost, Sabrena Mervin-Blake, Rose Hallarn, Charles Rathmann, H. Robert Kolb, Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb, Toni D'Agostino, Eric P. Rubinstein, Ann M. Dozier, Kathryn Schuff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability. Method: The CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted. Results: Forty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness. Conclusions: Many CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1180-1189
Number of pages10
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume89
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

expertise
science
evaluation
Research Ethics Committees
Organizational Policy
Informatics
Translational Medical Research
Social Responsibility
Feasibility Studies
Contracts
Registries
Surveys and Questionnaires
Research Personnel
infrastructure
responsibility
planning
lack
demand
resources
performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Institutions : A call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation. / Kost, Rhonda G.; Mervin-Blake, Sabrena; Hallarn, Rose; Rathmann, Charles; Kolb, H. Robert; Himmelfarb, Cheryl Dennison; D'Agostino, Toni; Rubinstein, Eric P.; Dozier, Ann M.; Schuff, Kathryn.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8, 2014, p. 1180-1189.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kost, RG, Mervin-Blake, S, Hallarn, R, Rathmann, C, Kolb, HR, Himmelfarb, CD, D'Agostino, T, Rubinstein, EP, Dozier, AM & Schuff, K 2014, 'Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Institutions: A call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation', Academic Medicine, vol. 89, no. 8, pp. 1180-1189. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000308
Kost, Rhonda G. ; Mervin-Blake, Sabrena ; Hallarn, Rose ; Rathmann, Charles ; Kolb, H. Robert ; Himmelfarb, Cheryl Dennison ; D'Agostino, Toni ; Rubinstein, Eric P. ; Dozier, Ann M. ; Schuff, Kathryn. / Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Institutions : A call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation. In: Academic Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 89, No. 8. pp. 1180-1189.
@article{5e3bdb26e5404d3a80dc6daecbb2aef4,
title = "Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Institutions: A call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation",
abstract = "Purpose: To respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability. Method: The CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted. Results: Forty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78{\%}-91{\%}, by study type); 39{\%} reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39{\%}); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49{\%}) and participant registries (44{\%}). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30{\%}) or contract approval (22{\%}). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10{\%} of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness. Conclusions: Many CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.",
author = "Kost, {Rhonda G.} and Sabrena Mervin-Blake and Rose Hallarn and Charles Rathmann and Kolb, {H. Robert} and Himmelfarb, {Cheryl Dennison} and Toni D'Agostino and Rubinstein, {Eric P.} and Dozier, {Ann M.} and Kathryn Schuff",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000000308",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "89",
pages = "1180--1189",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Institutions

T2 - A call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation

AU - Kost, Rhonda G.

AU - Mervin-Blake, Sabrena

AU - Hallarn, Rose

AU - Rathmann, Charles

AU - Kolb, H. Robert

AU - Himmelfarb, Cheryl Dennison

AU - D'Agostino, Toni

AU - Rubinstein, Eric P.

AU - Dozier, Ann M.

AU - Schuff, Kathryn

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Purpose: To respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability. Method: The CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted. Results: Forty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness. Conclusions: Many CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

AB - Purpose: To respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability. Method: The CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted. Results: Forty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness. Conclusions: Many CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905448966&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905448966&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000308

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000308

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 1180

EP - 1189

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 8

ER -