Enrollment and Retention Outcomes from the Veterans Health Administration for a Remote Digital Health Study: Multisite Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology are well-suited to remote studies, for which patients complete key procedures online. However, remote digital health studies often suffer from low enrollment and retention, threatening the successful achievement of study outcomes and wasting resources and time. Recruiting patients from a large integrated health system offers a greater potential pool of participants for enrollment, which can increase the likelihood of successful study completion. OBJECTIVE: This study describes enrollment and retention outcomes for a remote digital health study of an RPM device conducted in collaboration with researchers from the Veterans Health Administration (VA). The VA is the largest integrated health system in the United States, with 9 million enrollees who are, as a group, older and with more medical and mental health comorbidities than the civilian population. METHODS: We aimed to enroll 200 VA patients for a clinical study of a cellular-enabled, handheld, multisensor device that captures multiple health parameters and transmits data to a cloud-based dashboard for viewing by clinicians. Eligible patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 within 3-6 months before enrollment and had one of 6 pre-existing medical comorbidities. Potentially eligible patients were identified using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Every 3 weeks, up to 1000 potentially eligible patients were mailed a recruitment letter. All study tasks, including obtaining informed consent, device training and troubleshooting, and handling study-related questions, were completed online and by telephone. Device and survey data were combined with VA clinical and utilization data to develop a predictive algorithm for clinical decompensation. The geographic distribution of enrolled patients was mapped by county. Demographic and health characteristics of nonenrolled versus enrolled, and of completers versus noncompleters were compared using t tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. Reasons for noncompletion were summed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate variables associated with enrolling versus nonenrolling, and completing versus noncompleting. RESULTS: Of the 7714 who were mailed a study invitation, 560 were screened. Of the screened patients, 203 were enrolled (2.9% enrollment yield) and 166 completed the study (82% retention rate). Enrolled patients were broadly distributed across the United States. Among those enrolled, completers and noncompleters were similar except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with hypertension among completers. The most common reason for noncompletion of the study was that participants were unable to be contacted for study tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Remote digital health studies are increasingly common, but inadequate enrollment often results in failed studies. Recruiting patients through the VA enables access to a very large population of potentially eligible patients and can help ensure that clinical trials reach targets for enrollment and completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05713266; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05713266.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".