PreprintCited by 5Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsEthics in Clinical Research

A Framework for Recruiting into a Remote Measurement Technologies (RMTs) study: Experiences from a major depressive disorder cohort

Open access
Oetzmann, Carolin, White, Katie M, Ivan, Alina, Julie, Jessica, Leightley, Daniel, Lavelle, Grace, Lamers, Femke, Siddi, Sara +10 more·2021

Abstract

The use of remote measurement technologies (RMTs) across mobile health (mHealth) studies is becoming increasingly popular, given their potential for high-frequency symptom monitoring outside of routine clinical appointments. However, many RMT studies fail to report on engagement and recruitment statistics, with the few who do citing a wide range of recruitment rates. There is a need for the standardisation of best practices for successful recruitment into RMT research, critical for both research validity and reproducibility. The current paper aims to create a framework for successful recruitment into RMT studies, reflecting on the experience of RADAR-MDD, a large-scale, multi-site prospective cohort study utilising RMT to explore the clinical course of people with major depressive disorder across the UK, Netherlands, and Spain. More specifically, the paper assesses four key strategies for successful recruitment, alongside a review of the common barriers to participation and how to avoid them. Finally, the strategies and barriers outlined are combined into a single model of recruitment, that can be used as a framework to inform future study design and evaluation. Such a model will be applicable to a variety of stakeholders using RMT in healthcare research and practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31219/osf.io/ns7dc

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oetzmann, C., White, K. M., Ivan, A., Julie, J., Leightley, D., Lavelle, G., Lamers, F., Siddi, S., Annas, P., Garcia, S. A., Haro, J. M., Mohr, D. C., Penninx, B. W., Simblett, S., Wykes, T., Narayan, V. A., Hotopf, M., & Matcham, F.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu (ES)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Published
2021-06-09
OpenAlex
W4255524762
Cited by
5
References
38
Citations by year
2022: 3 · 2021: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • European Commission
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (115902)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
participant recruitment, participant recruitment strategies, barriers to participation, mobile health, major depressive disorder, research engagement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review