Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment

  • Jihad S. Obeid (a1), Laura M. Beskow (a2), Marie Rape (a3), Ramkiran Gouripeddi (a4), R. Anthony Black (a5), James J. Cimino (a6), Peter J. Embi (a7), Chunhua Weng (a8), Rebecca Marnocha (a9), John B. Buse (a3) and for the Methods and Process and Informatics Domain Task Force Workgroup...

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the termsof theCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: J. B. Buse, M.D., Ph.D., NC Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, CB 7064, 160 N Medical Drive (Brinkhous-Bullitt 2nd floor), Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7064, USA. (Email: jbuse@med.unc.edu)

Footnotes

Hide All

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Workgroup members are listed in the online Supplementary Material.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1. Lovato, LC, et al. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18: 328352.
2. Ross, S, et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999; 52: 11431156.
3. Cowie, MR, et al. Electronic health records to facilitate clinical research. Clinical Research Cardiology 2017; 106: 19.
4. Coorevits, P, et al. Electronic health records: new opportunities for clinical research. Journal of Internal Medicine 2013; 274: 547560.
5. Weng, C, et al. Using EHRs to integrate research with patient care: promises and challenges. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2012; 19: 684687.
6. Henry, J, et al. Adoption of electronic health record systems among U.S. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals: 2008-2015 (ONC Data Brief No. 35). Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Washington, DC.
7. Harris, PA, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2009; 42: 377381.
8. Murphy, SN, et al. Serving the enterprise and beyond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2). Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2010; 17: 124130.
9. Damschroder, LJ, et al. Patients, privacy and trust: patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Social Science & Medicine 2007; 64: 223235.
10. Grande, D, et al. Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information. JAMA Internal Medicine 2013; 173: 17981806.
11. Grande, D, et al. The importance of purpose: moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information. Annals of Internal Medicine 2014; 161: 855U837.
12. Caine, K, Hanania, R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2013; 20: 715.
13. Patel, V, Barker, W, Siminerio, E. Disparities in individuals’ access and use of health IT in 2014 (ONC Data Brief No. 34). Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Washington, DC, 2016.
14. Bower, JK, et al. Active use of electronic health records (EHRs) and personal health records (PHRs) for epidemiologic research: sample representativeness and nonresponse bias in a study of women during pregnancy. EGEMS (Washington, DC) 2017; 5: 1263.
15. Embi, PJ, et al. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165: 22722277.
16. Rollman, BL, et al. Comparison of electronic physician prompts versus waitroom case-finding on clinical trial enrollment. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008; 23: 447450.
17. Embi, PJ, Leonard, AC. Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2012; 19: e145e148.
18. Embi, PJ, Jain, A, Harris, CM. Physicians’ perceptions of an electronic health record-based clinical trial alert approach to subject recruitment: a survey. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2008; 8: 13.
19. Weng, C, et al. A real-time screening alert improves patient recruitment efficiency. AMIA . Annual Symposium Proceedings/AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium 2011; 2011: 14891498.
20. Ferranti, JM, et al. The design and implementation of an open-source, data-driven cohort recruitment system: the Duke Integrated Subject Cohort and Enrollment Research Network (DISCERN). Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2012; 19: e68e75.
21. Thadani, SR, et al. Electronic screening improves efficiency in clinical trial recruitment. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16: 869873.
22. Fihn, SD, et al. Insights from advanced analytics at the Veterans Health Administration. Health Affairs (Millwood) 2014; 33: 12031211.
23. Hurdle, JF, et al. Courdy, identifying clinical/translational research cohorts: ascertainment via querying an integrated multi-source database. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2013; 20: 164171.
24. Horvath, MM, et al. The DEDUCE Guided Query tool: providing simplified access to clinical data for research and quality improvement. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2011; 44: 266276.
25. Narus, SP, et al. Federating clinical data from six pediatric hospitals: process and initial results from the PHIS+ Consortium. AMIA . Annual Symposium Proceedings/AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium 2011; 2011: 9941003.
26. Kluding, PM, et al. Frontiers: integration of a research participant registry with medical clinic registration and electronic health records. Clinical and Translational Science 2015; 8: 405411.
27. Cheah, S, et al. Permission to contact (PTC) – a strategy to enhance patient engagement in translational research. Biopreservation and Biobanking 2013; 11: 245252.
28. Sanderson, IC, et al. Managing clinical research permissions electronically: a novel approach to enhancing recruitment and managing consents. Clinical Trials 2013; 10: 604611.
29. Tan, MH, et al. Design, development and deployment of a Diabetes Research Registry to facilitate recruitment in clinical research. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2016; 47: 202208.
30. Beskow, LM, et al. Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 2004; 130A: 424431.
31. Beskow, LM, et al. Patient perspectives on research recruitment through cancer registries. Cancer Causes & Control 2005; 16: 11711175.
32. Beskow, LM, Sandler, RS, Weinberger, M. Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues. American Journal of Public Health 2006; 96: 19201926.
33. Beskow, LM, et al. The effect of physician permission versus notification on research recruitment through cancer registries (United States). Cancer Causes & Control 2006; 17: 315323.
34. Sharkey, K, et al. Clinician gate-keeping in clinical research is not ethically defensible: an analysis. Journal of Medical Ethics 2010; 36: 363366.
35. Corregano, L, et al. Accrual Index: a real-time measure of the timeliness of clinical study enrollment. Clinical and Translational Science 2015; 8: 655661.

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Obeid et al supplementary material
Obeid et al supplementary material 1

 PDF (95 KB)
95 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Obeid et al supplementary material
Obeid et al supplementary material 2

 Word (38 KB)
38 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed