This study assesses the feasibility of biomedical informatics resources for efficient recruitment of rural residents with cancer to a clinical trial of a quality-of-life (QOL) mobile app. These resources have the potential to reduce costly, time-consuming, in-person recruitment methods.

A cohort was identified from the electronic health record data repository and cross-referenced with patients who consented to additional research contact. Rural–urban commuting area codes were computed to identify rurality. Potential participants were emailed study details, screening questions, and an e-consent link via REDCap. Consented individuals received baseline questionnaires automatically. A sample minimum of n = 80 [n = 40 care as usual (CAU) n = 40 mobile app intervention] was needed.

N = 1298 potential participants (n = 365 CAU; n = 833 intervention) were screened for eligibility. For CAU, 68 consented, 67 completed baseline questionnaires, and 54 completed follow-up questionnaires. For intervention, 100 consented, 97 completed baseline questionnaires, and 58 completed follow-up questionnaires. The CAU/intervention reached 82.5%/122.5% of the enrollment target within 2 days. Recruitment and retention rates were 15.3% and 57.5%, respectively. The mean age was 59.5 ± 13.5 years. The sample was 65% women, 20% racial/ethnic minority, and 35% resided in rural areas.

These results demonstrate that biomedical informatics resources can be highly effective in recruiting for cancer QOL research. Precisely identifying individuals likely to meet inclusion criteria who previously indicated interest in research participation expedited recruitment. Participants completed the consent and baseline questionnaires with zero follow-up contacts from the research team. This low-touch, repeatable process may be highly effective for multisite clinical trials research seeking to include rural residents.

Since 2015, the Harvard Workshop on Research Methods in Supportive Oncology has trained early-career investigators in skills to develop rigorous studies in supportive oncology. This study examines workshop evaluations over time in the context of two factors: longitudinal participant feedback and a switch from in-person to virtual format during the COVID pandemic.

We examined post-workshop evaluations for participants who attended the workshop from 2015 to 2021. We qualitatively analyzed evaluation free text responses on ways in which the workshop could be improved and “other comments.” Potential areas of improvement were categorized and frequencies were compiled longitudinally. Differences in participants' ratings of the workshop and demographics between in-person and virtual formats were investigated with t-tests and Chi-square tests, respectively.

286 participants attended the workshop over 8 years. Participant ratings of the workshop remained consistently high without substantial variation across all years. Three main themes emerged from the “other comments” item: (1) sense of community; (2) passion and empowerment; and (3) value of protected time. Participants appeared to identify fewer areas for improvement over time. There were no significant differences in participant ratings or demographics between the in-person and virtual formats.

While the workshop has experienced changes over time, participant evaluations varied little. The core content and structure might have the greatest influence on participants’ experiences.

Early career investigators have few opportunities for targeted training in supportive oncology research. To address this need, we developed, implemented, and evaluated an intensive, six-day workshop on methods in supportive oncology research for trainees and junior faculty across multiple disciplines.

A multidisciplinary team of supportive oncology researchers developed a workshop patterned after the clinical trials workshop offered jointly by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and American Association of Cancer Research. The curriculum included lectures and a mentored experience of writing a research protocol. Each year since 2015, the workshop has accepted and trained 36 early career investigators. Over the course of the workshop, participants present sections of their research protocols daily in small groups led by senior researchers, and have dedicated time to write and revise these sections. Primary outcomes for the workshop included the frequency of completed protocols by the end of the workshop, a pre- and posttest assessing participant knowledge, and follow-up surveys of the participants and their primary mentors.

Over three years, the workshop received 195 applications; 109 early career researchers were competitively selected to participate. All participants (109/109, 100%) completed writing a protocol by the end of their workshop. Participants and their primary mentors reported significant improvements in their research knowledge and skills. Each year, participants rated the workshop highly in terms of satisfaction, value, and likelihood of recommending it to a colleague. One year after the first workshop, most respondents (29/30, 96.7%) had either submitted their protocol or written at least one other protocol.

We developed a workshop on research methods in supportive oncology. More early career investigators applied for the workshop than capacity, and the workshop was fully attended each year. Both the workshop participants and their primary mentors reported improvement in research skills and knowledge.