Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Utilizing a patient advocacy-led clinical network to engage diverse, community-based sites in implementation-effectiveness research
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Utilizing a patient advocacy-led clinical network to engage diverse, community-based sites in implementation-effectiveness research
Do you wish to request the book?
Utilizing a patient advocacy-led clinical network to engage diverse, community-based sites in implementation-effectiveness research
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Utilizing a patient advocacy-led clinical network to engage diverse, community-based sites in implementation-effectiveness research
2024
Overview
Background
Increased engagement with community-based practices is a promising strategy for increasing clinical trials access of diverse patient populations. In this study we assessed the ability to utilize a patient-advocacy organization led clinical network to engage diverse practices as field sites for clinical research.
Methods
GO2 for Lung Cancer led recruitment efforts of 17 field sites from their Centers of Excellence in Lung Cancer Screening Network for participation in an implementation-effectiveness trial focused on smoking cessation integration into screening programs for lung cancer. Sites were engaged by one of three methods: 1) Pre-Grant submission of letters of support, 2) a non-targeted study information dissemination campaign to network members, and 3) proactive, targeted outreach to specific centers informed by previously submitted network member data. Detailed self-reported information on barriers to participation was collected from centers that declined to join the study.
Results
Of 17 total field sites, 16 were recruited via the targeted outreach campaign and 1 via pre-grant letter of support submission. The sites covered 13 states and 4 United States geographic regions, were varied in annual screening volumes and years of screening program experience and were predominantly community-based practices (10 of 17 sites). The most reported reason (by 33% of sites) for declining to participate as a field site was inadequate staffing bandwidth for trial activities. This was especially true in community-based programs among which it was reported by 45% as a reason for declining.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that this model of field site recruitment leveraging an existing partnership between an academic research team and an informal clinical network maintained by a disease-specific patient advocacy organization can result in engagement of diverse, community-based field sites. Additionally, reported barriers to participation by sites indicate that solutions centered around providing additional resources to enable greater capacity for site staff may increase community-practice participation in research.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
