An observational study in Chronic Low Back Pain, sponsored by RAND. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 21 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-02-26.
Sponsored by RAND · Observational
Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →
Among 154 studies in Patient Participation with a site in United States — 27 open to participants now, 31 under way, none of them phase 3. Patient Participation · United States.
Among the 154 studies in Patient Participation with a site in United States, this one has the largest enrollment of the 15 observational ones that give a count, is the only one that started in 2017, is one of 15 observational ones, and was the 42nd registered.
409 studies on the registry are indexed under Patient Participation; 100 are open to participants now.
Browse Patient Participation studies →27 of the 154 studies in Patient Participation with a site in United States are open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:
University of Utah · Sites in United States
Ages 18+ · Women only · Healthy volunteers
William Brandenburg, MD · Sites in United States
Ages 18+ · Healthy volunteers
University of Nebraska · Sites in United States
Ages 15–18
University of Washington · Sites in United States
Ages 14+ · Healthy volunteers
Columbia University · Sites in United States
Ages 18+
A study can be open while its sites in United States have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in United States →
Of the 48 Patient Participation studies recruiting now, 32 (67%) set no upper age limit and 9 (19%) stop at 75 or younger; 10 take children under 18; 11 take healthy volunteers.
This study: 21 Years and older · all sexes · healthy volunteers too.
The full table on the hub →This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
154 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.
A study in two phases is counted once above. Listed by phase, each with its combined phases: Phase 1 3 · Phase 2 2 · Phase 3 2 · Phase 4 1
First in 2002; this study’s year is marked. 1 started in 2017.
By drug class, each counting the studies that test any of its medicines:
This study's enrollment of 8,193 is above the median of 170 across 80 observational studies indexed under Patient Participation.
Median enrollment 130 across the 139 interventional studies, 257 across the 15 observational. Of the 114 that completed or were terminated, 42 (37%) have results posted.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
10 of 154 have an industry lead sponsor. The 10 most frequent:
RAND is the lead sponsor of 115 studies on the registry; 7 are open to participants now.
RAND has 1 study filed under Patient Participation — fewer than ten, so there is no comparison to draw.
13 of the studies in Patient Participation with a site in United States that are under way reach primary completion within a year, 0 of them phase 3. Phase 3 first, then by date:
| Study | Primary completion |
|---|---|
| NCT06989593Sarah SchlegelBreaking Silence Through Story: A Narrative Medicine Intervention for Parents of Children With Urogenital Conditions | 2026-11 |
| NCT06246409University of FloridaModernizing Instructions to Improve Treatment Participation of Subjects During Their First Radiotherapy | 2026-12 |
| NCT07489105Auburn UniversityForge AHEAD: Feasibility of Yoga to Improve Cognitive Function | 2026-12-31 |
| NCT06581484University of California, San FranciscoImproving Congenital Heart Disease Care | 2026-12-31 |
| NCT06358261Johns Hopkins UniversityStudy of a Diabetes Prevention Patient Activation Clinical Decision Support Tool | 2027-01-01 |
Add all 13 to your calendar (.ics) → With an account.
Among the 154 studies in Patient Participation with a site in United States, from their registry updates:
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
The study aims to advance pain research by exploring feasibility of crowdsourcing patient pain data via Amazon Mechanical Turk, the largest and most studied crowdsourcing platform in the U.S. We will leverage an existing NIH/NCCIH grant as a comparison data (RAND Center of Excellence in Research on CAM; CERC) to conduct a feasibility study of new methods for gathering and analyzing data on chronic pain and engaging pain patients in health policy.
The study aims to advance the pain research by exploring the crowdsourcing approach for eliciting and analyzing the way in which individuals experience and understand chronic pain. Investigators will leverage an existing NIH/NCCIH grant (RAND Center of Excellence in Research on CAM; CERC) to conduct a feasibility study of new methods for gathering and analyzing data on chronic pain and engaging pain patients in health policy processes through three specific aims:
Aim 1 (Inclusion): Gain access to chronic pain patients using crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). This aim explores whether crowdsourcing provides a credible method for patient inclusion. People with low back pain will be accessed via the crowdsourcing platform MTurk and asked to take health surveys that were also administered to a national clinical sample of chiropractic patients within a RAND study. Equivalency of validated, self-reported measures of low back pain obtained from crowdsourced versus "gold standard" data from the RAND study will be assessed. Similarities and differences between demographics and other pain and function variables between crowdsourced and RAND data will be analyzed. Subsamples of crowdsourced data will be analyzed to assess reliability of the extent to which data yields the same results across repeated crowdsourced samples.
Aim 2 (Participation): Engage chronic pain patients in inclusion criteria setting for national pain treatment programs. This aim will intends to facilitate patient participation in NIH criteria-setting for program inclusion. Crowdsourced patients will assist with qualitative coding of data responses to the question, "What does chronic pain mean to you?" Investigators will explore whether crowdsourcing provides a valid method by which coding may be conducted, first measuring reliability across crowd samples, second testing the accuracy of participant coding as compared with expert coders at RAND Corporation. A method of assessing face validity will be tested as participants may create additional codes and give feedback by rating the importance of each dimension.
Aim 3: Assess efficiency and quality of crowdsourced data as compared to CERC data. Investigators will draw quantitative comparisons of cost (labor/incentives), time, data quality (amount of text, missing data) across online crowdsourced and CERC study samples.
The proposed study utilizes the resources of an existing NIH grant by exploring the feasibility of using innovative online methods for eliciting patient perspectives on chronic pain and for engaging patients in analyses procedures. The study provides an opportunity to determine whether patient chronic pain experiences and perspectives can be gathered through crowdsourcing using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), in a valid, replicable, and resource efficient way. Although focused on chronic low back pain, the study findings will have broad implications for patient engagement more generally. If the crowdsourcing methods produce data that is comparable to "gold standard" methods used in the RAND Study entitled, "Center of Excellence in Research on Chiropractic" (RAND/CERC Study), this new experimental system has the potential to provide low-cost and time-efficient methods to advance democratically-oriented research, evaluation, policy and ultimately patient-centered clinical care.
Participants of Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform with chronic low back pain who utilize chiropractic care.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants who are registered users on Amazon Mechanical Turk (crowdsourcing platform) who volunteer to take survey.
Other: Surveys
Web surveys about experiences with chronic low back pain, demographics, coding qualitative text.
ODI Score
Oswestry Disability Index: Validated low back pain function scale (0-100)
Time frame: day 1
PROMIS-29
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 29 items, Version 2: Validated, self-reported measure of global, physical, mental, and social health for adults in the general population and those living with a chronic condition.
Time frame: day 1
Average Pain NRS (0-10)
Numeric Rating Scale for pain intensity: Average pain in past seven days (0-10)
Time frame: day 1
Worst Pain NRS (0-10)
Numeric Rating Scale for pain intensity: worse pain in past seven days (0-10)
Time frame: day 1
Demographics
Gender, Age, Race/Ethnicity, Education, Income, Employment Status,
Time frame: day 1
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from Jan 2017 to primary completion in Dec 2017, 10 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.