Recruitment of participants into research studies remains a major concern for investigators. Using clinical teams to identify potentially eligible patients can present a significant barrier. To overcome this, we implemented a process for using our patient portal, called MyChart, as a new institutional recruitment option utilizing our electronic health record’s existing functionality.

To streamline the institutional approval process, we established a working group comprised of representatives from human subject protection, information technology, and privacy and vetted our process with many stakeholder groups. Our specific process for study approval is described and started with a consultation with our recruitment and retention function funded through our Clinical and Translational Science Award.

The time from consultation to the first message(s) sent ranged from 84 to 442 days and declined slightly over time. The overall patient response rate to MyChart messages about available research studies was 23% with one third of those saying they were interested in learning more. The response rate for Black and Hispanic patients was about 50% that of White patients.

Many different types of studies from any medical specialty successfully identified interested patients using this option. Study teams needed support in defining appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria to identify the relevant population in the electronic health records and they needed assistance writing study descriptions in plain language. Using MyChart for recruitment addressed a critical barrier and opened up the opportunity to provide a full recruitment consultation to identify additional recruitment channels the study teams would not have considered otherwise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied.

We evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal. Participants of research studies were identified (n=4013) and 800 were randomly selected to receive a survey, 200 for each method. Outcomes included response rate, survey completeness, and cost.

Among those aged <65 years, response rates did not differ between mail, phone, and patient portal (22%, 29%, 30%, p>0.07). Among these methods, the patient portal was the lowest-cost option. Response rates were significantly lower using email (10%, p<0.01), the lowest-cost option. In contrast, among those aged 65+ years, mail was superior to the electronic methods (p<0.02).

The patient portal was among the most effective ways to reach research participants, and was less expensive than surveys administered by mail or telephone.

We developed a service to identify potential study participants through electronic medical records and deliver study invitations through patient portals.

The service was piloted in a cohort study that used multiple recruitment methods.

Patient portal messages were sent to 1303 individuals and the enrollment rate was 10% (n=127). The patient portal enrollment rate was significantly higher than email and post mail (4%) strategies.

Patient portal messaging was an effective recruitment strategy.