Empowering the Participant Voice (EPV): Design and implementation of collaborative infrastructure to collect research participant experience feedback at scale.

Empowering the Participant Voice (EPV) is an NCATS-funded six-CTSA collaboration to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate a low-cost infrastructure for collecting timely feedback from research participants, fostering trust, and providing data for improving clinical translational research. EPV leverages the validated Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS) and the popular REDCap electronic data-capture platform. This report describes the development of infrastructure designed to overcome identified institutional barriers to routinely collecting participant feedback using RPPS and demonstration use cases. Sites engaged local stakeholders iteratively, incorporating feedback about anticipated value and potential concerns into project design. The team defined common standards and operations, developed software, and produced a detailed planning and implementation Guide. By May 2023, 2,575 participants diverse in age, race, ethnicity, and sex had responded to approximately 13,850 survey invitations (18.6%); 29% of responses included free-text comments. EPV infrastructure enabled sites to routinely access local and multi-site research participant experience data on an interactive analytics dashboard. The EPV learning collaborative continues to test initiatives to improve survey reach and optimize infrastructure and process. Broad uptake of EPV will expand the evidence base, enable hypothesis generation, and drive research-on-research locally and nationally to enhance the clinical research enterprise.

Describing current use, barriers, and facilitators of patient portal messaging for research recruitment: Perspectives from study teams and patients at one institution.

Introduction: The electronic health record (EHR) and patient portal are used increasingly for clinical research, including patient portal recruitment messaging (PPRM). Use of PPRM has grown rapidly; however, best practices are still developing. In this study, we examined the use of PPRM at our institution and conducted qualitative interviews among study teams and patients to understand experiences and preferences for PPRM. Methods: We identified study teams that sent PPRMs and patients that received PPRMs in a 60-day period. We characterized these studies and patients, in addition to the patients' interactions with the PPRMs (e.g., viewed, responded). From these groups, we recruited study team members and patients for semi-structured interviews. A pragmatic qualitative inquiry framework was used by interviewers. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis exploratory approach. Results: Across ten studies, 35,037 PPRMs were sent, 33% were viewed, and 17% were responded to. Interaction rates varied across demographic groups. Six study team members completed interviews and described PPRM as an efficient and helpful recruitment method. Twenty-eight patients completed interviews. They were supportive of receiving PPRMs, particularly when the PPRM was relevant to their health. Patients indicated that providing more information in the PPRM would be helpful, in addition to options to set personalized preferences. Conclusions: PPRM is an efficient recruitment method for study teams and is acceptable to patients. Engagement with PPRMs varies across demographic groups, which should be considered during recruitment planning. Additional research is needed to evaluate and implement recommended changes by study teams and patients.