45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants.

          Methods

          This is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial (‘EQUIP’) recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation.

          Results

          Thirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes.

          Conclusion

          To our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research.

          Trial registration numbers

          ISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358. Registered on 14 May 2014.

          Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26. Registered on 21 January 2016.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1718-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

          This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. Objective To identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation. Design Systematic review. Data sources The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. Study selection Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. Results 45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters. Conclusions There are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

            Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard assessment for health technologies. A key aspect of the design of any clinical trial is the target sample size. However, many publicly-funded trials fail to reach their target sample size. This study seeks to assess the current state of recruitment success and grant extensions in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Methods Data were gathered from two sources: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Journal Archive and the MRC subset of the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register. A total of 440 trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 were assessed for eligibility, of which 73 met the inclusion criteria. Where data were unavailable from the reports, members of the trial team were contacted to ensure completeness. Results Over half (55%) of trials recruited their originally specified target sample size, with over three-quarters (78%) recruiting 80% of their target. There was no evidence of this improving over the time of the assessment. Nearly half (45%) of trials received an extension of some kind. Those that did were no more likely to successfully recruit. Trials with 80% power were less likely to successfully recruit compared to studies with 90% power. Conclusions While recruitment appears to have improved since 1994 to 2002, publicly-funded trials in the UK still struggle to recruit to their target sample size, and both time and financial extensions are often requested. Strategies to cope with such problems should be more widely applied. It is recommended that where possible studies are planned with 90% power.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials

              Background Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread and important problem. With poor recruitment being such an important issue with respect to the conduct of randomised trials, a systematic review of controlled trials on recruitment methods was undertaken in order to identify strategies that are effective. Methods We searched the register of trials in Cochrane library from 1996 to end of 2004. We also searched Web of Science for 2004. Additional trials were identified from personal knowledge. Included studies had to use random allocation and participants had to be allocated to different methods of recruitment to a 'real' randomised trial. Trials that randomised participants to 'mock' trials and trials of recruitment to non-randomised studies (e.g., case control studies) were excluded. Information on the study design, intervention and control, and number of patients recruited was extracted by the 2 authors. Results We identified 14 papers describing 20 different interventions. Effective interventions included: telephone reminders; questionnaire inclusion; monetary incentives; using an 'open' rather than placebo design; and making trial materials culturally sensitive. Conclusion Few trials have been undertaken to test interventions to improve trial recruitment. There is an urgent need for more RCTs of recruitment strategies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                adwoa.hughes-morley@york.ac.uk
                mark.hann@manchester.ac.uk
                claire.fraser@manchester.ac.uk
                Oonagh.Meade@nottingham.ac.uk
                karina.lovell@manchester.ac.uk
                bridget.young@liverpool.ac.uk
                chris.roberts@manchester.ac.uk
                lindsey.cree@manchester.ac.uk
                donna.more64@gmail.com
                NEIL.OLEARY@nuigalway.ie
                Patrick.Callaghan@nottinggham.ac.uk
                Waquas.Waheed@Lancashirecare.nhs.uk
                peter.bower@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                8 December 2016
                8 December 2016
                2016
                : 17
                : 586
                Affiliations
                [1 ]York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD UK
                [2 ]Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [3 ]Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [4 ]School of Health Sciences, Queen’s Medical Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2HA UK
                [5 ]MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
                [6 ]HRB Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland
                [7 ]School of Health Sciences and Institute of Mental Health, The University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2TU UK
                [8 ]MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PT UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2880-3935
                Article
                1718
                10.1186/s13063-016-1718-1
                5146878
                27931252
                93e1e17b-07e0-4613-8895-22466ad44b95
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 July 2016
                : 19 November 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000659, Research Trainees Coordinating Centre;
                Award ID: NIHR DRF 2012 051128
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-1210-12007
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                recruitment,patient and public involvement,research methodology,randomised controlled trial,service user involvement,study within a trial,mesh: embedded trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content156

                Cited by11

                Most referenced authors1,074