Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2025

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Centralizing prescreening data collection to inform data-driven approaches to clinical trial recruitment
Dylan R Kirn1,2, Joshua D Grill3,4,5, Paul Aisen6
1Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. dkirn@mgh.harvard.edu.
Background:
Recruiting to multi-site trials is challenging, particularly when striving to ensure the randomized sample is demographically representative of the larger disease-suffering population. While previous studies have reported disparities by race and ethnicity in enrollment and randomization, they have not typically investigated whether disparities exist in the recruitment process prior to consent. To identify participants most likely to be eligible for a trial, study sites frequently include a prescreening process, generally conducted by telephone, to conserve resources. Collection and analysis of such prescreening data across sites could provide valuable information to improve understanding of recruitment intervention effectiveness, including whether traditionally underrepresented participants are lost prior to screening.
Methods:
We developed an infrastructure within the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Alzheimer's Clinical Trials Consortium (ACTC) to centrally collect a subset of prescreening variables. Prior to study-wide implementation in the AHEAD 3-45 study (NCT NCT04468659), an ongoing ACTC trial recruiting older cognitively unimpaired participants, we completed a vanguard phase with seven study sites. Variables collected included age, self-reported sex, self-reported race, self-reported ethnicity, self-reported education, self-reported occupation, zip code, recruitment source, prescreening eligibility status, reason for prescreen ineligibility, and the AHEAD 3-45 participant ID for those who continued to an in-person screening visit after study enrollment.
Results:
Each of the sites was able to submit prescreening data. Vanguard sites provided prescreening data on a total of 1029 participants. The total number of prescreened participants varied widely among sites (range 3-611), with the differences driven mainly by the time to receive site approval for the main study. Key learnings instructed design/informatic/procedural changes prior to study-wide launch.
Conclusion:
Centralized capture of prescreening data in multi-site clinical trials is feasible. Identifying and quantifying the impact of central and site recruitment activities, prior to participants signing consent, has the potential to identify and address selection bias, instruct resource use, contribute to effective trial design, and accelerate trial enrollment timelines.
More Related Videos
12:18A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
06:32Author Spotlight: Automated Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease - Exploring the Possibilities and Challenges of Home Monitoring
Published on: July 14, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials: Overview
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Preclinical Development: Overview
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...