A data-rich recruitment core to support translational clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Underenrollment of clinical studies wastes resources and delays assessment of research discoveries. We describe the organization and impact of a centralized recruitment core delivering comprehensive recruitment support to investigators. METHODS: The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science supports a centralized recruitment core, call center, Research Volunteer Repository, data infrastructure, and staff who provide expert recruitment services to investigators. During protocol development, consultations aim to optimize enrollment feasibility, develop recruitment strategy, budget, and advertising. Services during study conduct include advertising placement, repository queries, call management, prescreening, referral, and visit scheduling. Utilization and recruitment outcomes are tracked using dedicated software. RESULTS: For protocols receiving recruitment services during 2009-2013: median time from initiation of recruitment to the first enrolled participant was 10 days; of 4,047 first-time callers to the call center, 92% (n = 3,722) enrolled in the Research Volunteer Repository, with 99% retention; 23% of Repository enrollees subsequently enrolled in ≥1 research studies, with 89% retention. Of volunteers referred by repository queries, 49% (280/537) enrolled into the study, with 92% retained. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of robust recruitment infrastructure including expertise, a volunteer repository, data capture and real-time analysis accelerates protocol accrual. Application of recruitment science improves the quality of clinical investigation.

Caregivers' confidence in performing child safety seat installations: what matters most?

BACKGROUND: Although effective when used correctly, child restraint systems (CRS) are commonly misused. Caregivers must make accurate judgements about the quality of their CRS installations, but there is little research on the psychological, technological, or contextual factors that might influence these judgements. METHODS: Seventy-five caregivers were observed installing a CRS into a vehicle and completed self-report surveys measuring risk appraisals, previous utilisation of CRS resources, task difficulty, and confidence that the CRS was installed correctly. RESULTS: Approximately 30% of caregivers installed the CRS inaccurately and insecurely, but reported that it was correctly installed. Predictors of confidence were ease of use (ß=0.47) and exposure to CRS resources (ß=-0.34). Installation errors and CRS security were unrelated to caregivers' confidence. CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary approach is needed to understand factors influencing caregivers' judgements about their installations, optimise channels to connect caregivers to CRS resources, and to design safety technologies in light of these findings.