↓ Skip to main content

Clinical patient registry recruitment and retention: a survey of patients in two chronic disease registries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical patient registry recruitment and retention: a survey of patients in two chronic disease registries
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0343-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel H. Solomon, Nancy A. Shadick, Michael E. Weinblatt, Michelle Frits, Christine Iannaccone, Agnes Zak, Joshua R. Korzenik

Abstract

The collection of routine clinical data in the setting of research registries can serve an important role in understanding real world care. However, relatively little is known about the patient experience in registries, motivating us to survey patients enrolled in two chronic disease registries. We conducted similar surveys in two disease-based registries based at one academic medical center in the US. One group of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had been enrolled in a registry, and we focused on retention factors. In a second group of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) recently enrolled or considering enrollment, we examined factors that would influence their enrollment and willingness to answer frequent questionnaires and give biospecimens. The surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the two cohorts were compared using nonparametric and chi-square tests. We received 150 (50%) completed surveys from RA and 169 (63%) from IBD patients. Mean age of subjects was 62 years in RA and 43 in IBD with more women respondents with RA (83%) than IBD (62%). The two groups described very similar factors as the top three motivations for participation: desire to help others, desire to improve care of own disease, and ease of volunteering. Preferred methods of surveying included mail, e-mail, but telephone was not favored; age was an important correlate of this preference. Respondents preferred surveys either every 1-3 months (28.7% RA and 55.0% IBD) or every 4-6 months (50.7% RA and 29.0% IBD). They differed in the preference for payment for answering surveys with 68.0% with RA answering that no payment was necessary but only 36.1% with IBD felt similarly. Patients engaged in clinical registries demonstrate a high level of commitment to improve care and many report a willingness to answer questions relatively frequently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,473,847
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#979
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,796
of 310,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.