Patient Recruitment System for Clinical Trials: Mixed Methods Study About Requirements at Ten University Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are the gold standard for advancing medical knowledge and improving patient outcomes. For their success, an appropriately sized cohort is required. However, patient recruitment remains one of the most challenging aspects of clinical trials. Information technology (IT) support systems-for instance, patient recruitment systems-may help overcome existing challenges and improve recruitment rates, when customized to the user needs and environment. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our study is to describe the status quo of patient recruitment processes and to identify user requirements for the development of a patient recruitment system. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey with 56 participants as well as semistructured interviews with 33 participants from 10 German university hospitals. RESULTS: We here report the recruitment procedures and challenges of 10 university hospitals. The recruitment process was influenced by diverse factors such as the ward, use of software, and the study inclusion criteria. Overall, clinical staff seemed more involved in patient identification, while the research staff focused on screening tasks. Ad hoc and planned screenings were common. Identifying eligible patients was still associated with significant manual efforts. The recruitment staff used Microsoft Office suite because tailored software were not available. To implement such software, data from disparate sources will need to be made available. We discussed concrete technical challenges concerning patient recruitment systems, including requirements for features, data, infrastructure, and workflow integration, and we contributed to the support of developing a successful system. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying eligible patients is still associated with significant manual efforts. To fully make use of the high potential of IT in patient recruitment, many technical and process challenges have to be solved first. We contribute and discuss concrete technical challenges for patient recruitment systems, including requirements for features, data, infrastructure, and workflow integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".