↓ Skip to main content

Cost and yield considerations when expanding recruitment for genetic studies: the primary open-angle African American glaucoma genetics study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Cost and yield considerations when expanding recruitment for genetic studies: the primary open-angle African American glaucoma genetics study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0374-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Salowe, Laura O’Keefe, Sayaka Merriam, Roy Lee, Naira Khachatryan, Prithvi Sankar, Eydie Miller-Ellis, Amanda Lehman, Victoria Addis, Windell Murphy, Jeffrey Henderer, Maureen Maguire, Joan O’Brien

Abstract

African Americans have been historically under-represented in genetic studies. More research is needed on effective recruitment strategies for this population, especially on approaches that supplement traditional clinic enrollment. This study evaluates the cost and efficacy of four supplemental recruitment methods employed by the Primary Open-Angle African American Glaucoma Genetics (POAAGG) study. After enrolling 2304 patients from University of Pennsylvania ophthalmology clinics, the POAAGG study implemented four new recruitment methods to supplement clinic enrollment. These methods included: 1) outreach in the local community, 2) in-house screening of community members ("in-reach"), 3) expansion to two external sites, and 4) sampling of the Penn Medicine Biobank. The cost per subject was calculated for each method and enrollment among cases, controls, and suspects was reported. The biobank offered the lowest cost ($5/subject) and highest enrollment yield (n = 2073) of the four methods, but provided very few glaucoma cases (n = 31). External sites provided 88% of cases recruited from the four methods (n = 388; $85/subject), but case enrollment at these sites declined over the next 9 months as the pool of eligible subjects was depleted. Outreach and in-reach screenings of community members were very high cost for low return on enrollment ($569/subject for 102 subjects and $606/subject for 45 subjects, respectively). The biobank offered the most cost-effective method for control enrollment, while expansion to external sites was necessary to recruit richly phenotyped cases. These recruitment methods helped the POAAGG study to exceed enrollment of the discovery cohort (n = 5500) 6 months in advance of the predicated deadline and could be adopted by other large genetic studies seeking to supplement clinic enrollment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 7 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,891
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,401
of 312,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#33
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 312,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.