Enhancing Outpatient Clinic Recruitment: A Quality Improvement Strategy for a Prospective Research Study.
Priya D Bolikal, Ryan Schuetter, Tess Guzman and 7 others
PMID 41477099WHAT IT FOUND
Assigning clinic staff as recruitment champions and standardizing workflows increased the rate of eligible patients receiving study information from 32% to an average of 58.9%.
Enrollment averaged 54%, showing that embedding research tasks into clinical routines improves recruitment.
Key findings
01The proportion of eligible patients informed about the study increased from a baseline of 32% to an average contact rate of 58.9%.
02Overall enrollment averaged 54%, with enrollment from clinic contact averaging 59%.
03Receiving study information in clinic was significantly correlated with enrollment in the study.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was conducted in a single outpatient setting at one institution, limiting generalizability to inpatient, emergency, or community settings. The population was restricted to adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury, so it does not address recruitment challenges for patients with mobility limitations or other barriers common in broader rehabilitation populations. Data relied on self-reports from recruitment champions, which may introduce bias if staff inconsistently documented their efforts. Confounding variables such as staff turnover, leave, and fluctuating clinic volumes likely influenced the effectiveness of the interventions. The baseline rate was calculated from a prior study rather than concurrent controls, which may affect the precision of the comparison.
Declared interests
The investigators have no financial or nonfinancial disclosures to make in relation to this project.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the increase in contact and enrollment rates as evidence that the interventions caused the improvement without considering confounders. The study lacked a concurrent control group, relied on a historical baseline, and involved self-reported data, meaning changes in clinic staffing, patient volume, or seasonal trends could also explain the results.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →