Developing and Launching a Research Participant Registry.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in clinical research today is the difficulty that studies have in meeting recruitment goals. Up to 48% of studies do not meet accrual goals within the specified timeframe, significantly delaying the progress of projects and the dissemination of findings. This pervasive problem is a recruitment crisis. We developed a representative, ethnically and racially diverse research participant registry in a predominantly rural state with high levels of health care disparities and minority populations. We sought input at each step of development from members of community advisory boards (CABs) across Arkansas. We report how community involvement in the development of the registry was implemented. METHODS: Members of CABs were partners in developing all aspects of the registry website, including the name, content, appearance, educational messages, and testimonials used. Constructs from the Health Belief Model informed the educational messages and supported the intense multimedia campaign used to launch and promote ongoing registrations. Using CAB guidance, community events were held throughout the state of Arkansas at venues with diverse racial and ethnic attendance. RESULTS: From April 1, 2016 to September 1, 2017, 4,002 people registered statewide who match the demographic profile of Arkansas. CONCLUSION: CAB involvement in the registry, multiple cues to action, and face-to-face contact with diverse lay audiences throughout the state were key components of the successful registry launch.

The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC): Engagement and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: Many institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium. METHODS: The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange. RESULTS: All nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.