Recruitment Strategies in the Integration of Mobile Health Into Sickle Cell Disease Care to Increase Hydroxyurea Utilization Study (meSH): Multicenter Survey Study
Chinonyelum Nwosu,Hamda Khan,Rita Masese,Judith M Nocek,Siera Gollan,Taniya Varughese,Sarah Bourne,Cindy Clesca,Sara R Jacobs,Ana Baumann,Lisa M Klesges,Nirmish Shah,Jane S Hankins,Matthew P Smeltzer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/48767
2024-04-16
Abstract:Background: Hydroxyurea is an evidence-based disease-modifying therapy for sickle cell disease (SCD) but is underutilized. The Integration of Mobile Health into Sickle Cell Disease Care to Increase Hydroxyurea Utilization (meSH) multicenter study leveraged mHealth to deliver targeted interventions to patients and providers. SCD studies often underenroll; and recruitment strategies in the SCD population are not widely studied. Unanticipated events can negatively impact enrollment, making it important to study strategies that ensure adequate study accrual. Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate enrollment barriers and the impact of modified recruitment strategies among patients and providers in the meSH study in response to a global emergency. Methods: Recruitment was anticipated to last 2 months for providers and 6 months for patients. The recruitment strategies used with patients and providers, new recruitment strategies, and recruitment rates were captured and compared. To document recruitment adaptations and their reasons, study staff responsible for recruitment completed an open-ended 9-item questionnaire eliciting challenges to recruitment and strategies used. Themes were extrapolated using thematic content analysis. Results: Total enrollment across the 7 sites included 89 providers and 293 patients. The study acceptance rate was 85.5% (382/447) for both patients and providers. The reasons patients declined participation were most frequently a lack of time and interest in research, while providers mostly declined because of self-perceived high levels of SCD expertise, believing they did not need the intervention. Initially, recruitment involved an in-person invitation to participate during clinic visits (patients), staff meetings (providers), or within the office (providers). We identified several important recruitment challenges, including (1) lack of interest in research, (2) lack of human resources, (3) unavailable physical space for recruitment activities, and (4) lack of documentation to verify eligibility. Adaptive strategies were crucial to alleviate enrollment disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These included remote approaching and consenting (eg, telehealth, email, and telephone) for patients and providers. Additionally, for patients, recruitment was enriched by simplification of enrollment procedures (eg, directly approaching patients without a referral from the provider) and a multitouch method (ie, warm introductions with flyers, texts, and patient portal messages). We found that patient recruitment rates were similar between in-person and adapted (virtual with multitouch) approaches (167/200, 83.5% and 126/143, 88.1%, respectively; P=.23). However, for providers, recruitment was significantly higher for in-person vs remote recruitment (48/50, 96% and 41/54, 76%, respectively, P<.001). Conclusions: We found that timely adaptation in recruitment strategies secured high recruitment rates using an assortment of enriched remote recruitment strategies. Flexibility in approach and reducing the burden of enrollment procedures for participants aided enrollment. It is important to continue identifying effective recruitment strategies in studies involving patients with SCD and their providers and the impact and navigation of recruitment challenges. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT03380351; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03380351. International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/16319.