Review of strategies to investigate low sample return rates in remote tobacco trials: A call to action for more user-centered design research

Roger Vilardaga , Johannes Thrul , Anthony DeVito , Darla E. Kendzor , Patricia Sabo , Tatiana Cohab Khafif
{"title":"Review of strategies to investigate low sample return rates in remote tobacco trials: A call to action for more user-centered design research","authors":"Roger Vilardaga ,&nbsp;Johannes Thrul ,&nbsp;Anthony DeVito ,&nbsp;Darla E. Kendzor ,&nbsp;Patricia Sabo ,&nbsp;Tatiana Cohab Khafif","doi":"10.1016/j.addicn.2023.100090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Remote collection of biomarkers of tobacco use in clinical trials poses significant challenges. A recent meta-analysis and scoping review of the smoking cessation literature indicated that sample return rates are low and that new methods are needed to investigate the underlying causes of these low rates. In this paper we conducted a narrative review and heuristic analysis of the different human factors approaches reported to evaluate and/or improve sample return rates among 31 smoking cessation studies recently identified in the literature. We created a heuristic metric (with scores from 0 to 4) to evaluate the level of elaboration or complexity of the user-centered design strategy reported by researchers. Our review of the literature identified five types of challenges typically encountered by researchers (in that order): usability and procedural, technical (device related), sample contamination (e.g., polytobacco), psychosocial factors (e.g., digital divide), and motivational factors. Our review of strategies indicated that 35% of the studies employed user-centered design methods with the remaining studies relying on informal methods. Among the studies that employed user-centered design methods, only 6% reached a level of 3 in our user-centered design heuristic metric. None of the studies reached the highest level of complexity (i.e., 4). This review examined these findings in the context of the larger literature, discussed the need to address the role of health equity factors more directly, and concluded with a call to action to increase the application and reporting of user-centered design strategies in biomarkers research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72067,"journal":{"name":"Addiction neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/84/f5/nihms-1909959.PMC10327900.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772392523000330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Remote collection of biomarkers of tobacco use in clinical trials poses significant challenges. A recent meta-analysis and scoping review of the smoking cessation literature indicated that sample return rates are low and that new methods are needed to investigate the underlying causes of these low rates. In this paper we conducted a narrative review and heuristic analysis of the different human factors approaches reported to evaluate and/or improve sample return rates among 31 smoking cessation studies recently identified in the literature. We created a heuristic metric (with scores from 0 to 4) to evaluate the level of elaboration or complexity of the user-centered design strategy reported by researchers. Our review of the literature identified five types of challenges typically encountered by researchers (in that order): usability and procedural, technical (device related), sample contamination (e.g., polytobacco), psychosocial factors (e.g., digital divide), and motivational factors. Our review of strategies indicated that 35% of the studies employed user-centered design methods with the remaining studies relying on informal methods. Among the studies that employed user-centered design methods, only 6% reached a level of 3 in our user-centered design heuristic metric. None of the studies reached the highest level of complexity (i.e., 4). This review examined these findings in the context of the larger literature, discussed the need to address the role of health equity factors more directly, and concluded with a call to action to increase the application and reporting of user-centered design strategies in biomarkers research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远程烟草试验中低样本返回率调查策略综述:呼吁采取行动,开展更多以用户为中心的设计研究
在临床试验中远程收集烟草使用的生物标志物带来了重大挑战。最近一项对戒烟文献的荟萃分析和范围界定综述表明,样本返回率较低,需要新的方法来调查这些低比率的根本原因。在这篇论文中,我们对文献中最近确定的31项戒烟研究中报告的评估和/或提高样本返回率的不同人为因素方法进行了叙述性回顾和启发式分析。我们创建了一个启发式指标(得分从0到4)来评估研究人员报告的以用户为中心的设计策略的详细程度或复杂性。我们对文献的回顾确定了研究人员通常遇到的五种类型的挑战(按顺序):可用性和程序性、技术(设备相关)、样本污染(如polytobacco)、心理社会因素(如数字鸿沟)和动机因素。我们对策略的回顾表明,35%的研究采用了以用户为中心的设计方法,其余的研究则依赖于非正式的方法。在采用以用户为中心的设计方法的研究中,只有6%的研究在以用户为核心的设计启发式指标中达到了3级。没有一项研究达到最高的复杂性(即4项)。这篇综述在更大的文献背景下审查了这些发现,讨论了更直接地解决健康公平因素作用的必要性,并呼吁采取行动,增加以用户为中心的设计策略在生物标志物研究中的应用和报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Addiction neuroscience
Addiction neuroscience Neuroscience (General)
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
118 days
期刊最新文献
Opioid drug seeking after early-life adversity: a role for delta opioid receptors Contents Editorial Board Corrigendum to “Xylazine is an agonist at kappa opioid receptors and exhibits sex-specific responses to opioid antagonism” [Addiction Neuroscience, Volume 11, June 2024, 100155] Neurokinin-1 receptors in the nucleus accumbens shell influence sensitivity to social defeat stress and stress-induced alcohol consumption in male mice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1