Public attitudes toward an authorization for contact program for clinical research

Profiles of digital health literacy among university students and its association with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent profile analysis

Objective

Investigating the digital health literacy of university students can facilitate their effective acquisition of health information and adoption of appropriate protective behaviors. This study aims to explore the subtypes of digital health literacy among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic and their association with mental health outcomes.

Methods

From 17 November to 14 December 2022, a stratified random sampling approach was used to conduct an online questionnaire survey on digital health literacy, fear of COVID-19, and depression status among students at Jilin University, China. A total of 1060 valid responses were obtained in the survey. Latent profile analysis identified subtypes of digital health literacy and linear regression analyses were used to examine the association of digital health literacy to the mental health outcome.

Results

Three latent profiles were identified: Profile 1-low digital health literacy (n = 66, 6.23%), Profile 2-moderate digital health literacy (n = 706, 66.60%), and Profile 3-high digital health literacy (n = 288, 27.17%). Results from linear regression demonstrated a negative correlation between digital health literacy and fear of COVID-19 (B = -2.954, P < 0.001) as well as depression (B = -2.619, P < 0.001) among university students.

Conclusions

This study indicated that the majority of university students exhibit a moderate level of digital health literacy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the study validates a negative correlation between digital health literacy and mental health among university students.

Selecting EHR-driven recruitment strategies: An evidence-based decision guide

Participant recruitment for research is a persistent bottleneck that can be improved by leveraging electronic health records (EHRs). Despite emerging evidence for various EHR-driven approaches, guidance for those attempting to select and use such approaches is limited. The national Recruitment Innovation Center established the EHR Recruitment Consult Resource (ERCR) service line to support multisite studies through implementation of EHR-driven recruitment strategies. As the ERCR, we evolved a guide through 17 consultations over 3 years with multisite studies recruiting in diverse biomedical research domains. We assessed literature and engaged domain experts to identify five key EHR-driven recruitment strategies: direct to patient messages, candidate lists for mailings/calls, direct to research alerts, point of care alerts, and participant registries. Differentiating factors were grouped into factors of study population, study protocol and recruitment workflows, and recruitment site capabilities. The decision matrix indicates acceptable or preferred strategies based on the differentiating factors. Across the ERCR consultations, candidate lists for mailing or calls were most common, participant registries were least frequently recommended, and for some studies no EHR-driven recruitment was recommended. Comparative effectiveness research is needed to refine further evidence for these and potentially new strategies to come.

Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision.

RESULTS

In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.