Recruitment in Appalachian, Rural and Older Adult Populations in an Artificial Intelligence World: Study Using Human-Mediated Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment in rural and hard-to-reach (HTR) populations can present unique challenges. These challenges are further exacerbated by the need for low-cost recruiting, which often leads to use of web-based recruitment methods (eg, email, social media). Despite these challenges, recruitment strategy statistics that support effective enrollment strategies for underserved and HTR populations are underreported. This study highlights how a recruitment strategy that uses email in combination with follow-up, mostly phone calls and email reminders, produced a higher-than-expected enrollment rate that includes a diversity of participants from rural, Appalachian populations in older age brackets and reports recruitment and demographic statistics within a subset of HTR populations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide evidence that a recruitment strategy that uses a combination of email, telephonic, and follow-up recruitment strategies increases recruitment rates in various HTR populations, specifically in rural, older, and Appalachian populations. METHODS: We evaluated the overall enrollment rate of 1 recruitment arm of a larger study that aims to understand the relationship between genetics and substance use disorders. We evaluated the enrolled population's characteristics to determine recruitment success of a combined email and follow-up recruitment strategy, and the enrollment rate of HTR populations. These characteristics included (1) enrollment rate before versus after follow-up; (2) zip code and county of enrollee to determine rural or urban and Appalachian status; (3) age to verify recruitment in all eligible age brackets; and (4) sex distribution among age brackets and rural or urban status. RESULTS: The email and follow-up arm of the study had a 17.4% enrollment rate. Of the enrolled participants, 76.3% (4602/6030) lived in rural counties and 23.7% (1428/6030) lived in urban counties in Pennsylvania. In addition, of patients enrolled, 98.7% (5956/6030) were from Appalachian counties and 1.3% (76/6030) were from non-Appalachian counties. Patients from rural Appalachia made up 76.2% (4603/6030) of the total rural population. Enrolled patients represented all eligible age brackets from ages 20 to 75 years, with the 60-70 years age bracket having the most enrollees. Females made up 72.5% (4371/6030) of the enrolled population and males made up 27.5% (1659/6030) of the population. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that a web-based recruitment method with participant follow-up, such as a phone call and email follow-up, increases enrollment numbers more than web-based methods alone for rural, Appalachian, and older populations. Adding a humanizing component, such as a live person phone call, may be a key element needed to establish trust and encourage patients from underserved and rural areas to enroll in studies via web-based recruitment methods. Supporting statistics on this recruitment strategy should help researchers identify whether this strategy may be useful in future studies and HTR populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".