4.1 Article

Clinical trial management of participant recruitment, enrollment, engagement, and retention in the SMART study using a Marketing and Information Technology (MARKIT) model

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 185-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.04.002

关键词

Clinical trial management; Marketing; Social media; Technology; Intervention; Behavior

资金

  1. NHLBI/NIH grant [U01 HL096715]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in information technology and near ubiquity of the Internet have spawned novel modes of communication and unprecedented insights into human behavior via the digital footprint. Health behavior randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially technology-based, can leverage these advances to improve the overall clinical trials management process and benefit from improvements at every stage, from recruitment and enrollment to engagement and retention. In this paper, we report the results for recruitment and retention of participants in the SMART study and introduce a new model for clinical trials management that is a result of interdisciplinary team science. The MARKIT model brings together best practices from information technology, marketing, and clinical research into a single framework to maximize efforts for recruitment, enrollment, engagement, and retention of participants into a RCT. These practices may have contributed to the study's on-time recruitment that was within budget, 86% retention at 24 months, and a minimum of 57% engagement with the intervention over the 2-year RCT. Use of technology in combination with marketing practices may enable investigators to reach a larger and more diverse community of participants to take part in technology-based clinical trials, help maximize limited resources, and lead to more cost-effective and efficient clinical trial management of study participants as modes of communication evolve among the target population of participants. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据