Section 1 : Weekly Operations Metrics Analytics/Operations Review

[KELSEYDOWLING7]

1. For Table 1.21, we only want active recruits. However, we currently have participants with both Data Destruction = ‘yes' AND Recruitment Status = ‘active’; because they still have an active status they are counted. This will cause the denominator to contradict other tables, such as Table 1.3 ’Total Active Recruits’ column.

• DECISION/FINDING - The variable for data destruction is HdWd_Destroydata_v1r0 not HdWd_DataHasBnDestroyed_v1r0, so we have low counts of requests that have not been fulfilled yet, and thus recruitment status is still populated. MANY tables and figures are affected by this. Code will be updated to exclude any data destruction requests where we don't want those with destruction included
• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated. in production

2. Table 1.4: Suggest changing "exclusion of Section 6" to "exception of Section 6”

• Operations decided/approved - Agreed
• Code updated. in production

3. Table 1.4 : Suggest moving this footnote out of a table and set as a more noticeable comment before Table 1.5 to indicate the shift in denominators moving forward with data destruction removed.

• DECISION/FINDING - Please move the footnote out of this and up to the very top of the report where you summarize what is included in the report.
• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

4. For Figure 1.3, Is there a footnote you could include to explain the jump in # of invitations around March 2025?

• DECISION/FINDING - @kmazzilli can you suggest something? This was largely driven by a big UC increase in invitations but also HP and a few other sites doubled invitations around March - May 2025. Would be good to not only footnote here but to add to the Study Timeline. Suggest checking site meeting notes to boost our recollection.
• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

5. Suggest changing title to "Table 1.6 Current Status in Workflow among All Recruits”

• Operations decided/approved - Agreed
• Code updated in production

6. Table 1.6 : Suggest relabeling "Total Recruits" as something else to distinguish this denominator with missing site excluded OR move this table ahead of Table 1.4 because Table 1.4's footnote says "Metrics moving forward will exclude participants with data destroyed" which makes it seem like the "Total Recruits" denominator should match.

• @brotzmanmj @robertsamm We had discussed removing passive duplicates from the entire report, but 4 tables explicitly include them: Tables 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12. How would we like to proceed? Note, active duplicates are already excluded from the report
• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

7. Table 1.6 : 'No Site Selected' was only showing up here. As such, I suggest we just exclude participants with no site selected from the entire report. We previously discussed moving this count into the footnote, but it didn't sound like we were specifically looking to keep track of that information for any purpose.

• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

8. Since we are removing non-active from the entire report is it ok for me to remove the 'Non Active But Verified' column in Table 1.1? That will also keep the consistency based on the report description at the beginning

• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

9. After Table 1.4 we need to remove all instances of data destruction (outside of section 6). Confirming that applies to all Figures after Figure 1.1? It currently does NOT because of the issue mentioned in the first bullet

• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

10. Table 1.7, rename Total Recruits column and suggest a footnote added explaining that the ’Total recruits’ column is the total number of participants that have either signed in and/or consented and/or completed user profile and/or completed verification and/or are verified. Also noting participants will be in multiple columns

• DECISION/FINDING - Remove Total Recruits column. The overall denominator is Signed-In (that would be 100%) and then each subsequent column should have the percent out of the column that precedes it. Suggested title that needs Ops finalized approval : Attrition in Enrollment Workflow among all Recruits who Signed In to MyConnect @robertsamm @brotzmanmj
• Operations decided/approved
• Code updated in production

11. Table 1.19 & 20: Suggest revising denominator column title to "Total Re-invited Active Recruits”

• Operations decided/approved - Agreed
• Code updated in production

12. Table 1.19 & 20: Suggest adding footnote to be more explicit: "Frequency (%) of Total Active Recruits among those who were re-invited”

• ** DECISION/FINDING** - Table 1.19 and 1.20, the first footnote is not informative and can be removed. Retain the second footnote as is. Table 1.19 Change title to 'Re-Invitations by Initial Campaign Type among Active Recruits’. Table 1.20 change title to ‘Re-invitation Response Rate by Initial Campaign Type among Active Recruits’
• Operations decided/approved - Agreed
• Code updated in production

13. (Ops Request) Add a re-invite line to Figures 1.3- 1.13

• Code updated in production

[KELSEYDOWLING7]

I have a preference question as well as I condense code.

This is the current version of Figure 1.3

If i were to use more efficient code for Figures 1.3-1.13, it would look like this, the same way the other figures are.

Please let me know the preference before I proceed.