Who can best recruit to randomized trials? Randomized trial comparing surgeons and nurses recruiting patients to a trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer (the ProtecT study)

Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants' experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory.

RESULTS

Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more "ad hoc" screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.

Best practices for recruitment in veterinary clinical trials

A successful clinical trial requires participants, but many factors can impede effective study recruitment. To better recruit for quality veterinary clinical trials in client-owned animals that lead to improved evidence-based patient care and outcomes, there is a collective need to share and implement current best practices for recruitment strategies. These strategies should utilize a holistic view of recruitment, encompassing study design and logistics, representative participation, incentives, personnel resources, advertising, and participant retention. Although human clinical trial data and resources can provide guidance, effort also needs to be put into evaluating current practices and opportunities for process improvement that are specific to the conduct of veterinary clinical trials. Considering the power of pets as naturally occurring models of disease and as sentinels, improved conduct of veterinary clinical research has the potential to inform human health outcomes. Continued development of collaborations surrounding best practices and training opportunities in veterinary clinical research will improve the impact of veterinary clinical trials teams, while also promoting workforce development and alternate career paths for veterinary professionals.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Background

Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking.

Objective

The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome.

Design

This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals.

Setting

National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation.

Results

The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy.

Conclusions

The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Recruitment and retention interventions in surgical and wound care trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and retention to surgical trials has previously been reported to be problematic, resulting in research waste. Surgery often results in wounds, meaning these trials are likely to have similar populations. There is currently no systematic assessment of effective strategies for these populations and hence, systematic assessment of these was deemed to be of importance.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials undertaken to test an intervention to improve recruitment or retention within a surgical or wound based host randomised controlled trial. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ORRCA Database and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form. A narrative synthesis was used due to a lack of heterogeneity between strategies which prevented meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2133 records were identified which resulted in 13 ultimately being included in the review; seven on recruitment and six on retention. All included studies were based within surgical host trials. Four of the seven recruitment studies focussed on the provision of consent information to participants, one focussed on study set up and one on staff training, with only one relating to consent information finding any significant effect. A range of retention strategies were assessed by the included studies, however only two found (pen vs no pen, mailing strategies) found any significant effect.

CONCLUSION

The included studies within a trial were all conducted within surgical trials. There was significant variation in strategies used, and limited replications and therefore further assessment may be warranted. Given the lack of studies embedded within wound care trials, further studies in this area are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020205475).

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.

DESIGN

To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.

SETTING

A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.

RESULTS

To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Online interventions for people hospitalized for deliberate self-harm and problematic alcohol use: Lessons learned from the iiAIM trial

Deliberate self-harm and suicide affect all age groups, sexes, and regions, and their prevention is a global health priority. Acute alcohol misuse and chronic alcohol misuse are strong, modifiable risk factors, and Internet interventions aiming to reduce alcohol misuse and comorbid mental health problems (e.g., depression) are a promising and effective treatment modality. The research team aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an Internet-based comorbidity intervention primarily aiming to reduce alcohol consumption, and secondarily to reduce readmission for deliberate self-harm and improve psychological outcomes among people hospitalized for deliberate self-harm who also engage in problematic alcohol use. However, due to several barriers to recruitment, the trial could not be completed and was discontinued. The authors present a "Lessons Learned" discussion and describe the Internet Intervention for Alcohol Improvement (iiAIM) trial, discuss the key barriers experienced by the research team, and recommend potential solutions that may help future trials in this area.

Exploring factors influencing recruitment results of nurses recruiting diabetes patients for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Effective recruitment of patients by health professionals is challenging but pivotal to the success of clinical trials. Many trials fail to include the required number of participants, which affects the power of the study, generalizability of results, and timely dissemination of positive outcomes. Existing research is inconclusive regarding factors influencing recruitment results, and most research does not focus on perceptions of recruiting health professionals themselves. Therefore, thorough evaluations of recruitment facilitators and barriers in trials are needed in order to optimize future patient recruitment in trials. We observed divergent recruitment results among nurses who recruited diabetes patients to our trial, which examined the effectiveness of an eHealth programme. Therefore, we aimed to describe nurses' recruitment results and related shifts over time, and to qualitatively explore factors influencing nurses' recruitment results.

METHODS

Nurses' recruitment results and related temporal shifts were derived from trial data (NTR6840). Based on their recruitment results, nurses were categorized as non-, low-, medium-, or high-recruiters. Subsequently, a subset of nurses per group participated in an individual semi-structured telephone interview. Interviews were analysed using NVivo software, applying an inductive coding approach.

RESULTS

Ninety-six nurses participated in our trial and recruited on average seven patients (range: 0-32). Fifteen nurses did not recruit any patients. Most patients were recruited close to recruitment onset. Nurses who did not recruit patients close to recruitment onset generally ended up recruiting no patients. Data show a relatively high number of early recruited patients that progressively declined over time. High-recruiters were generally successful throughout the entire recruitment period. Recruitment facilitators and barriers comprised organizational, study, patient, and especially recruiter characteristics. Contrary to non- and low-recruiters, medium- and high-recruiters reported more in-depth knowledge about the study and trial requirements, expressed more personal participation-related benefits and fewer barriers, and incorporated more recruitment activities, reminders, and barrier-focused coping strategies.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

To optimize patient recruitment to clinical trials, suggested intervention targets include the continued inclusion of recruiters after initial recruitment onset and the encouragement of early recruitment success. A personalized approach may aid recruiters to become and remain successful. Primarily, it is important to provide recruiters with sufficient information on trial requirements and to address salient benefits for participation in the trial, both for themselves and for their patients. Finally, teaching recruiters skills on how to overcome barriers may further enhance motivation and recruitment capacities.

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms.

DESIGN

A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study.

SETTING

Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation.

INTERVENTIONS

Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study.

RESULTS

In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Premature Termination of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Image-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression

LESSONS LEARNED

It is possible to plan and treat some patients with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in a timely fashion in an acute setting. Advanced and, in some indications, already implemented technologies such as SBRT are difficult to test in a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) could be an alternative to decompressive surgery followed by fractionated radiotherapy.

METHODS

In a randomized, single-institution, noninferiority trial, patients with MSCC were assigned to stereotactic body radiotherapy of 16 Gy in 1 fraction or decompression surgery followed by fractionated radiotherapy of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Primary endpoint was ability to walk by EQ5D-5L questionnaire. Based on power calculations, 130 patients had to be included to be 89% sure that a 15% difference between the treatment arm and the experimental arm could be detected.

RESULTS

Ten patients were accrued in 23 months, with six patients allocated to surgery and four patients to stereotactic body radiotherapy. The trial was closed prematurely because of poor accrual. One patient undergoing surgery and one patient undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy were unable to walk at 6 weeks. Two patients were not evaluable at 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

A randomized, phase II, clinical trial comparing surgery followed by fractionated radiotherapy or image-guided SBRT of MSCC was initiated. SBRT was shown to be feasible, with three out of four patients retaining walking function. The trial was determined futile as a result of low accrual.

The current role and perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists facilitating patient participation in Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) conducted within the NHS: A cross-sectional survey

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Secondary care pharmacists are well positioned within the healthcare system to communicate with patients and provide guidance and advice regarding drug treatments. They are able to broaden the opportunities to raise the profile of Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and positively influence research. This research aimed to investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists being involved in CTIMPs, their current role, and the perceived benefits and barriers of developing their role in facilitating patient participation for CTIMPs (eg, by identifying or recruiting potential participants).

METHODS

A cross-sectional quantitative online survey circulated to pharmacy professionals within the UK.

RESULTS

Involvement in CTIMPs and the facilitation of patient participation offered several benefits including improved communication and relationships with other healthcare professionals, developing the profession, developing training and knowledge, and exploring a personal interest. The main barriers to involvement included a lack of opportunities or awareness of opportunities, time, and funding or resources. Those employed at sites with a larger number of CTIMPs agreed more with the disadvantages; however, they also showed greater agreeance towards the benefits of pharmacy being involved in facilitating patient participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents do not currently have a role in identifying or recruiting potential participants. Despite this, being involved in CTIMPs and the facilitation of patient participation was suggested to offer several benefits. Given many participants agreed there are barriers to their involvement, future research should focus on exploring organizational and individual challenges with the aim of enabling pharmacists to support recruitment activities.

Recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials of men aged 50 years and older: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify and review evaluations of strategies to recruit men aged 50 years and over to randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ORRCA databases were searched to 1 December 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies using quantitative methods to evaluate recruitment strategies to RCTs of men aged 50 years and older.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A single reviewer extracted data (for each strategy, number of participants approached, screened and randomised, and cost). Study quality was assessed using National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tools and considered study design, description of interventions, description and measurement of outcomes, completeness of outcome reporting, performance of statistical testing and consideration of confounders. Recruitment strategies were categorised by the recruitment stage they addressed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (n >14 000) were included: one good quality, ten fair quality and five poor quality. Studies evaluated strategies to identify prospective participants, and to improve the processes for assessing participant eligibility, providing participant information and seeking consent. In good and fair quality studies, the most effective strategies for identifying participants were referral from an affiliated health service provider (two studies), mass mailing (five studies) and media coverage (two studies). Community outreach activities such as displaying posters and attending local community events were not effective (two studies). Trial-specific training of site recruitment staff, developed using qualitative analysis of recruitment visits (two studies), and provision of study information to prospective participants at a multidisciplinary, group information session (one study) both improved recruitment.

CONCLUSION

Improved engagement of men aged 50 years and older in RCTs is needed. A gender-sensitised approach to RCT recruitment may help to address this need. We have identified several promising recruitment strategies that merit further evaluation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060301.

Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review

Clinical trials are time consuming, expensive, and often burdensome on patients. Clinical trials can fail for many reasons. This survey reviews many of these reasons and offers insights on opportunities for improving the likelihood of creating and executing successful clinical trials. Literature from the past 30 years was reviewed for relevant data. Common patterns in reported successful trials are identified, including factors regarding the study site, study coordinator/investigator, and the effects on participating patients. Specific instances where artificial intelligence can help improve clinical trials are identified.

Failed Randomized Clinical Trials in Radiation Oncology: What Can We Learn?

PURPOSE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are essential to evidence-based medicine, yet a significant proportion fail to be completed. In radiation oncology, factors contributing to trial failure are not well understood. We sought to compare completed and incomplete clinical trials involving radiation therapy (RT) to identify predictors of trial failure.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We undertook a review of ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs involving RT. Eligible trials mandated external beam RT in ≥1 arm of the study and were registered between September 27, 2007, and December 31, 2010. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors predictive of trial failure.

RESULTS

We included 134 eligible studies, of which 94 (70.1%) were successful and 40 (29.9%) failed. The reasons for trial failure were categorized as follows: lack of accrual (57.5%), inadequate funding (15.0%), drug unavailability (7.5%), interim data-monitoring report recommendations (7.5%), and other (12.5%). Over time, significantly more trials were failing to be completed (P = .010), with rates increasing from 11.8% (before 2007) to 34.0% (2007-2008) to 39.5% (2009-2012). On univariate analysis, predictors of failure were trials with a surgical comparator (odds ratio [OR], 8.12; P = .013), government sponsorship (vs non-government; OR, 3.67; P = .025), inclusion of a safety endpoint (OR, 2.85; P = .022), and studies starting after 2006 (P = .033). On multivariate analysis, surgical trials were strongly predictive of failure (OR, 12.30; P = .025) while behavioral trials were associated with success (OR, 0.11; P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

RT RCTs involving ≥1 surgical arms are at a very high risk of failure, with 75% failing to be completed. In contrast, behavioral studies are associated with study completion, with 94% of studies being successful. Future RT trials involving surgical interventions should consider novel methods to reduce the risk of trial failure.

Patient-centered recruitment and retention for a randomized controlled study

Background

Recruitment and retention strategies for patient-centered outcomes research are evolving and research on the subject is limited. In this work, we present a conceptual model of patient-centered recruitment and retention, and describe the recruitment and retention activities and related challenges in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness trial.

Methods

This is a multicenter, longitudinal randomized controlled trial in localized prostate cancer patients.

Results

We recruited 743 participants from three sites over 15 months period (January 2014 to March 2015), and followed them for 24 months. At site 1, of the 773 eligible participants, 551 (72%) were enrolled. At site 2, 34 participants were eligible and 23 (68%) enrolled. Of the 434 eligible participants at site 3, 169 (39%) enrolled. We observed that strategies related to the concepts of trust (e.g., physician involvement, ensuring protection of information), communication (e.g., brochures and pamphlets in physicians’ offices, continued contact during regular clinic visits and calling/emailing assessment), attitude (e.g., emphasizing the altruistic value of research, positive attitude of providers and research staff), and expectations (e.g., full disclosure of study requirements and time commitment, update letters) facilitated successful patient recruitment and retention. A stakeholders’ advisory board provided important input for the recruitment and retention activities. Active engagement, reminders at the offices, and personalized update letters helped retention during follow-up. Usefulness of telephone recruitment was site specific and, at one site, the time requirement for telephone recruitment was a challenge.

Conclusions

We have presented multilevel strategies for successful recruitment and retention in a clinical trial using a patient-centered approach. Our strategies were flexible to accommodate site-level requirements. These strategies as well as the challenges can aid recruitment and retention efforts of future large-scale, patient-centered research studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02032550. Registered on 22 November 2013.

Predicting enrollment performance of investigational centers in phase III multi-center clinical trials

Failure to meet subject recruitment targets in clinical trials continues to be a widespread problem with potentially serious scientific, logistical, financial and ethical consequences. On the operational level, enrollment-related issues may be mitigated by careful site selection and by allocating monitoring or training resources proportionally to the anticipated risk of poor enrollment. Such procedures require estimates of the expected recruitment performance that are sufficiently reliable to allow centers to be sensibly categorized. In this study, we investigate whether information obtained from feasibility questionnaires can potentially be used to predict which centers will and which centers will not meet their enrollment targets by means of multivariable logistic regression analysis. From a large set of 59 candidate predictors, we determined the subset that is optimal for predictive purposes using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regularization. Although the extent to which the results are generalizable remains to be determined, they indicate that the prediction accuracy of the optimal model is only a marginal improvement over the intercept-only model, illustrating the difficulty of prediction in this setting.

Stepwise strategies to successfully recruit diabetes patients in a large research study in Mexican population

AIMS

Describe stepwise strategies (electronic chart review, patient preselection, call-center, personnel dedicated to recruitment) for the successful recruitment of >5000 type 2 diabetes patients in four months.

METHODS

Twenty-five family medicine clinics from Mexico City and the State of Mexico participated: 13 usual care, 6 specialized diabetes care and 6 chronic disease care. Appointments were scheduled from 11/3/2015 to 3/31/2016. Phone calls were generated automatically from an electronic database. A telephone questionnaire verified inclusion criteria, and scheduled an appointment, with a daily report of appointments, patient attendance, acceptance rate, and questionnaire completeness. Another recruitment log reviewed samples collected. Absolute number (percentage) of patients are reported. Means and standard deviations were estimated for continuous variables, χ² test and independent "t" tests were used. OR and 95% CI were estimated.

RESULTS

14,358 appointments were scheduled, 9146 (63.7%) attended their appointment: 5710 (62.4%) fulfilled inclusion criteria and 5244 agreed to participate (91.8% acceptance). Those accepting participation were more likely women, younger and with longer disease duration (p<0.05). The cost of the call-center service was $3,010,000.00 Mexican pesos (∼$31.70 USD per recruited patient).

CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise strategies recruit a high number of patients in a short time. Call centers offer a low cost per patient.

Exceeding the recruitment target in a primary care paediatric trial: an evaluation of the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET) feasibility randomised controlled trial

Background

Recruiting to target in randomised controlled trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in primary care and paediatric populations is notoriously difficult. More evidence is needed for effective recruitment strategies in these settings. We report on the impact of different recruitment strategies used in the Choice of Moisturiser in Eczema Treatment (COMET) study – a feasibility trial comparing the effectiveness of four emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema – recruiting via general practitioner (GP) surgeries.

Methods

Initially, 16 GP practices invited potentially eligible children to take part in the trial by sending an invitation letter (self-referral pathway) or by consenting and randomising them into the study during a visit to the practice (in-consultation referral). Measures implemented during the study to maximise accrual included signing up six additional GP practices, increasing the upper age limit eligibility criterion from 3 to 5 years, and permitting healthcare professionals other than doctors to confirm participant eligibility. We used descriptive statistics and univariate linear regression models to explore associations with practice recruitment rates.

Results

A total of 197 participants were recruited, exceeding the target of 160. Of these, 107 children entered via self-referral and 90 by in-consultation pathways. Of the recruited population, 12.6 % were aged between 3 and 5 years (the raised upper age limit). The six additional practices contributed 37.4 % (40 of 107) of participants recruited by self-referral. Only almost one-third (18 of 56 [32.1 %]) of potential recruiting clinicians recruited one or more participants in-consultation, which was a more problematic pathway because of data verification issues. Three research nurses and a pharmacist from four practices recruited 48.9 % (44 of 90) of participants via this pathway. Univariate linear regression models showed no evidence of association between the number of children recruited via the self-referral pathway by practice and practice list size (p = 0.092) or practice deprivation decile (p = 0.270), but practice deprivation was associated with a higher number of children recruited in-consultation (p = 0.020) by practice.

Conclusions

Self-referral and in-consultation recruitment yielded similar numbers, but the in-consultation pathway was more problematic. Future trials of this type should consider the condition, normal care pathway and number of potentially eligible children and be prepared to use multiple recruitment strategies to achieve recruitment targets.

Trial registration

ISRCTN21828118. Registered on 1 May 2014.

EudraCT2013-003001-26. Registered on 23 Dec 2013.

Recruitment for a hospital-based pragmatic clinical trial using volunteer nurses and students

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recruitment of subjects is critical to the success of any clinical trial, but achieving this goal can be a challenging endeavor. Volunteer nurse and student enrollers are potentially an important source of recruiters for hospital-based trials; however, little is known of either the efficacy or cost of these types of enrollers. We assessed volunteer clinical nurses and health science students in their rates of enrolling family members in a hospital-based, pragmatic clinical trial of cardiopulmonary resuscitation education, and their ability to achieve target recruitment goals. We hypothesized that students would have a higher enrollment rate and are more cost-effective compared to nurses.

METHODS

Volunteer nurses and student enrollers were recruited from eight institutions. Participating nurses were primarily bedside nurses or nurse educators while students were pre-medical, pre-nursing, and pre-health students at local universities. We recorded the frequency of enrollees recruited into the clinical trial by each enroller. Enrollers' impressions of recruitment were assessed using mixed-methods surveys. Cost was estimated based on enrollment data. Overall enrollment data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

From February 2012 to November 2014, 260 hospital personnel (167 nurses and 93 students) enrolled 1493 cardiac patients' family members, achieving target recruitment goals. Of those recruited, 822 (55%) were by nurses, while 671 (45%) were by students. Overall, students enrolled 5.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.88, 10.27) more subjects per month than nurses (p < 0.01). After consenting to participate in recruitment, students had a 2.85 (95% CI: 1.09, 7.43) increased chance of enrolling at least one family member (p = 0.03). Among those who enrolled at least one subject, nurses enrolled a mean of 0.51(95% CI: 0.42, 0.59) subjects monthly, while students enrolled 1.63 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.90) per month (p < 0.01). Of 198 surveyed hospital personnel (127 nurses, 71 students), 168/198 (85%) felt confident conducting enrollment. The variable cost per enrollee recruited was $25.38 per subject for nurses and $23.30 per subject for students.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, volunteer students enrolled more subjects per month at a lower cost than nurses. This work suggests that recruitment goals for a pragmatic clinical trial can be successfully obtained using both nurses and students.

Investigating patient recruitment to radiotherapy clinical trials

Background

Radiotherapy randomised controlled trials provide evidence to support the development of new techniques and dose/fractionation regimens. Some radiotherapy trials have previously had to close early or revise targets due to low recruitment rates. Many authors have recommended research into recruitment strategies for many areas of medicine, however little work has been carried out in the specific field of radiotherapy.

Method

Using a survey of research radiographers followed by radiotherapy patient interviews, this project provides perspectives on motives for patient participation in radiotherapy clinical trials, and how to best support people through this decision-making process.

Findings

The main factors influencing participation identified by the radiographers were altruism, treatment fatigue and concerns about the trial arms, lack of resources and lack of commitment from some medical colleagues. For patients the main factors were mainly emotional; altruism, and fears for efficacy of different trial arms featured, with requests for timely communication of trial information.

Conclusion

We recommend that strategies should be offered proactively to support patients through the decision-making process when considering trial participation. Research radiographers are ideally qualified to offer support and expert knowledge to these patients.

'The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual': a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

Background

Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.

Results

Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.

Conclusions

This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials

Background

Recruitment to clinical trials is difficult with many trials failing to recruit to target and within time. Embedding trials of recruitment interventions within host trials may provide a successful way to improve this. There are no guidelines for reporting such embedded methodology trials. As part of the Medical Research Council funded Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC START) programme designed to test interventions to improve recruitment to trials, we developed guidelines for reporting embedded trials.

Methods

We followed a three-phase guideline development process: (1) pre-meeting literature review to generate items for the reporting guidelines; (2) face-to-face consensus meetings to draft the reporting guidelines; and (3) post-meeting feedback review, and pilot testing, followed by finalisation of the reporting guidelines.

Results

We developed a reporting checklist based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010. Embedded trials evaluating recruitment interventions should follow the CONSORT statement 2010 and report all items listed as essential. We used a number of examples to illustrate key issues that arise in embedded trials and how best to report them, including (a) how to deal with description of the host trial; (b) the importance of describing items that may differ in the host and embedded trials (such as the setting and the eligible population); and (c) the importance of identifying clearly the point at which the recruitment interventions were embedded in the host trial.

Conclusions

Implementation of these guidelines will improve the quality of reports of embedded recruitment trials while advancing the science, design and conduct of embedded trials as a whole.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1126-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Protocol for a single-centre randomised controlled trial of multimodal periarticular anaesthetic infiltration versus single-agent femoral nerve blockade as analgesia for total knee arthroplasty: Perioperative Analgesia for Knee Arthroplasty (PAKA)

INTRODUCTION

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery causes postoperative pain. The use of perioperative injections around the knee containing local anaesthetic, opiates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has increased in popularity to manage pain. Theoretical advantages include reduced requirements for analgesia and earlier mobilisation. We propose a single-centre randomised controlled trial of multimodal periarticular anaesthetic infiltration versus femoral nerve anaesthetic blockade as analgesia for TKA. The aim is to determine, in patients undergoing TKA, if there is a difference in patient-reported pain scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS) prior to physiotherapy on day 1 postoperatively between treatment groups.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients undergoing a primary unilateral TKA at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Hospitals will be assessed for eligibility. A total of 264 patients will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 12 mm on the VAS on day 1 postoperatively at the 5% level. The trial will use 1:1 randomisation, stratified by mode of anaesthetic. Primary outcome measure will be the VAS for pain prior to physiotherapy on day 1. Secondary outcome measures include VAS on day 2, total use of opiate analgesia up to 48 h, ordinal pain scores up to 40 min after surgery, independent functional knee physiotherapist assessment on days 1 and 2. Oxford knee Scores (OKS), EuroQol (EQ-5D) and Douleur Neuropathic Pain Scores (DN2) will be recorded at baseline, 6 weeks and 12 months. Adverse events will be recorded up to 12 months. Analysis will investigate differences in VAS on day 1 between the two treatment groups on an intention-to-treat basis. Tests will be two-sided and considered to provide evidence for a significant difference if p values are less than 0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

NRES Committee West Midlands, 23 September 2013 (ref: 13/WM/0316). The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN 60611146 and EUDRACT Number 2013-002439-10 (protocol code number PAKA-33601-AS117013); Pre-results.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and stakeholder involvement through interviews and a Delphi survey

Background

Prostate cancer is a growing health problem worldwide. The management of localised prostate cancer is controversial. It is unclear which of several surgical, radiotherapeutic, ablative, and surveillance treatments is the most effective. All have cost, process and recovery, and morbidity implications which add to treatment decision-making complexity for patients and healthcare professionals. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal because of uncertainty as to what constitutes important outcomes. Another issue hampering evidence synthesis is heterogeneity of outcome definition, measurement, and reporting. This project aims to determine which outcomes are the most important to patients and healthcare professionals, and use these findings to recommend a standardised core outcome set for comparative effectiveness trials of treatments for localised prostate cancer, to optimise decision-making.

Methods/Design

The range of potentially important outcomes and measures will be identified through systematic reviews of the literature and semi-structured interviews with patients. A consultation exercise involving representatives from two key stakeholder groups (patients and healthcare professionals) will ratify the list of outcomes to be entered into a three round Delphi study. The Delphi process will refine and prioritise the list of identified outcomes. A methodological substudy (nested RCT design) will also be undertaken. Participants will be randomised after round one of the Delphi study to one of three feedback groups, based on different feedback strategies, in order to explore the potential impact of feedback strategies on participant responses. This may assist the design of a future core outcome set and Delphi studies. Following the Delphi study, a final consensus meeting attended by representatives from both stakeholder groups will determine the final recommended core outcome set.

Discussion

This study will inform clinical practice and future trials of interventions of localised prostate cancer by standardising a core outcome set which should be considered in comparative effectiveness studies for localised prostate cancer.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0598-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START): study protocol for embedded, randomized controlled trials

Background

Randomized controlled trials play a central role in evidence-based practice, but recruitment of participants, and retention of them once in the trial, is challenging. Moreover, there is a dearth of evidence that research teams can use to inform the development of their recruitment and retention strategies. As with other healthcare initiatives, the fairest test of the effectiveness of a recruitment strategy is a trial comparing alternatives, which for recruitment would mean embedding a recruitment trial within an ongoing host trial. Systematic reviews indicate that such studies are rare. Embedded trials are largely delivered in an ad hoc way, with interventions almost always developed in isolation and tested in the context of a single host trial, limiting their ability to contribute to a body of evidence with regard to a single recruitment intervention and to researchers working in different contexts.

Methods/Design

The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (START) program is funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) Methodology Research Programme to support the routine adoption of embedded trials to test standardized recruitment interventions across ongoing host trials. To achieve this aim, the program involves three interrelated work packages: (1) methodology - to develop guidelines for the design, analysis and reporting of embedded recruitment studies; (2) interventions - to develop effective and useful recruitment interventions; and (3) implementation - to recruit host trials and test interventions through embedded studies.

Discussion

Successful completion of the START program will provide a model for a platform for the wider trials community to use to evaluate recruitment interventions or, potentially, other types of intervention linked to trial conduct. It will also increase the evidence base for two types of recruitment intervention.

Trial registration

The START protocol covers the methodology for embedded trials. Each embedded trial is registered separately or as a substudy of the host trial.

Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients' treatment preferences

BACKGROUND

Patients' treatment preferences are often cited as barriers to recruitment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated how RCT recruiters reacted to patients' treatment preferences and identified key strategies to improve informed decision-making and trial recruitment.

METHODS

Audio-recordings of 103 RCT recruitment appointments with 96 participants in three UK multicenter pragmatic RCTs were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Recruiters' responses to expressed treatment preferences were assessed in one RCT (ProtecT - Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) in which training on exploring preferences had been given, and compared with two other RCTs where this specific training had not been given.

RESULTS

Recruiters elicited treatment preferences similarly in all RCTs but responses to expressed preferences differed substantially. In the ProtecT RCT, patients' preferences were not accepted at face value but were explored and discussed at length in three key ways: eliciting and acknowledging the preference rationale, balancing treatment views, and emphasizing the need to keep an open mind and consider all treatments. By exploring preferences, recruiters enabled participants to become clearer about whether their views were robust enough to be sustained or were sufficiently weak that participation in the RCT became possible. Conversely, in the other RCTs, treatment preferences were often readily accepted without further discussion or understanding the reasoning behind them, suggesting that patients were not given the opportunity to fully consider all treatments and trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiters can be trained to elicit and address patients' treatment preferences, enabling those who may not have considered trial participation to do so. Without specific guidance, some RCT recruiters are likely to accept initial preferences at face value, missing opportunities to promote more informed decision-making. Training interventions for recruiters that incorporate key strategies to manage treatment preferences, as in the ProtecT study, are required to facilitate recruitment and informed consent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ProtecT RCT: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. The other two trials are registered but have asked to be anonymized.

Cost-effectiveness of health research study participant recruitment strategies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A large fraction of the cost of conducting clinical trials is allocated to recruitment of participants. A synthesis of findings from studies that evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different recruitment strategies will inform investigators in designing cost-efficient clinical trials.

PURPOSE

To systematically identify, assess, and synthesize evidence from published comparisons of the cost and yield of strategies for recruitment of participants to health research studies.

METHODS

We included randomized studies in which two or more strategies for recruitment of participants had been compared. We focused our economic evaluation on studies that randomized participants to different recruitment strategies.

RESULTS

We identified 10 randomized studies that compared recruitment strategies, including monetary incentives (cash or prize), direct contact (letters or telephone call), and medical referral strategies. Only two of the 10 studies compared strategies for recruiting participants to clinical trials. We found that allocating additional resources to recruit participants using monetary incentives or direct contact yielded between 4% and 23% additional participants compared to using neither strategy. For medical referral, recruitment of prostate cancer patients by nurses was cost-saving compared to recruitment by consultant urologists. For all underlying study designs, monetary incentives cost more than direct contact with potential participants, with a median incremental cost per recruitment ratio of Int$72 (Int$-International dollar, a theoretical unit of currency) for monetary incentive strategy compared to Int$28 for direct contact strategy. Only monetary incentives and source of referral were evaluated for recruiting participants into clinical trials.

LIMITATIONS

We did not review studies that presented non-monetary cost or lost opportunity cost. We did not adjust for the number of study recruitment sites or the study duration in our economic evaluation analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic and explicit reporting of cost and effectiveness of recruitment strategies from randomized comparisons is required to aid investigators to select cost-efficient strategies for recruiting participants to health research studies including clinical trials.

The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of the study was to investigate how doctors considered and experienced the concept of equipoise while recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Study Design and Setting

In-depth interviews with 32 doctors in six publicly funded pragmatic RCTs explored their perceptions of equipoise as they undertook RCT recruitment. The RCTs varied in size, duration, type of complex intervention, and clinical specialties. Interview data were analyzed using qualitative content and thematic analytical methods derived from grounded theory and synthesized across six RCTs.

Results

All six RCTs suffered from poor recruitment. Doctors wanted to gather robust evidence but experienced considerable discomfort and emotion in relation to their clinical instincts and concerns about patient eligibility and safety. Although they relied on a sense of community equipoise to justify participation, most acknowledged having “hunches” about particular treatments and patients, some of which undermined recruitment. Surgeons experienced these issues most intensely. Training and support promoted greater confidence in equipoise and improved engagement and recruitment.

Conclusion

Recruitment to RCTs is a fragile process and difficult for doctors intellectually and emotionally. Training and support can enable most doctors to become comfortable with key RCT concepts including equipoise, uncertainty, patient eligibility, and randomization, promoting a more resilient recruitment process in partnership with patients.

Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams

Background

Recruiting the required number of participants is vital to the success of clinical research and yet many studies fail to achieve their expected recruitment rate. Increasing research participation is a key agenda within the NHS and elsewhere, but the optimal methods of improving recruitment to clinical research remain elusive. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that researchers perceive as influential in the recruitment of participants to clinically focused research.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 individuals from three clinical research teams based in London. Sampling was a combination of convenience and purposive. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method to identify key themes.

Results

Four themes were identified as influential to recruitment: infrastructure, nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics. The main reason individuals participate in clinical research was believed to be altruism, while logistical issues were considered important for those who declined. Suggestions to improve recruitment included reducing participant burden, providing support for individuals who do not speak English, and forming collaborations with primary care to improve the identification of, and access to, potentially eligible participants.

Conclusions

Recruiting the target number of research participants was perceived as difficult, especially for clinical trials. New and diverse strategies to ensure that all potentially eligible patients are invited to participate may be beneficial and require further exploration in different settings. Establishing integrated clinical and academic teams with shared responsibilities for recruitment may also facilitate this process. Language barriers and long journey times were considered negative influences to recruitment; although more prominent, these issues are not unique to London and are likely to be important influences in other locations.

SABRE 1 (Surgery Against Brachytherapy - a Randomised Evaluation): feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of brachytherapy vs radical prostatectomy in low-intermediate risk clinically localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of a phase III randomised controlled trial of brachytherapy vs radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-intermediate risk localised prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This parallel, two-group, multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial enrolled men with histologically confirmed localised, low-risk prostate cancer and good performance status from five UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by remote computer allocation to receive a decision aid (DA) DVD or standard information (control group), followed by a second randomisation (1:1) to brachytherapy or RP. There was no 'blinding' of staff or patients. Primary outcome was feasibility: a recruitment rate of six patients per centre over the last 6 months of recruitment would deem a phase III trial feasible.

RESULTS

Between May 2009 and May 2011, 30 patients were randomised (15 in the DA group and 15 in the control group), and four continued to the second treatment randomisation (one from the DA group and three from the control group). One patient was allocated and received brachytherapy and three RP. SABRE 1 closed early due to poor recruitment. All patients were analysed. Screening logbook analysis showed that the main reasons for declining trial entry were a wish to choose treatment or opting for active monitoring. Results from the DA questionnaire (completed by 10 men) showed that four of the men 'felt surgery and radiotherapy had been proven in a high quality trial' and seven felt 'they should make their treatment decision while knowing their doctors opinion'.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment to a RP vs brachytherapy trial in localised prostate cancer was not feasible by the use of this two-step randomisation using a DA and previous trials in early prostate cancer have had similar difficulties in recruitment, with only a few achieving their accrual target. The best treatment method for treating low-risk prostate cancer is still unproven in a head-to-head trial and the increasing number of options will make choices correspondingly more difficulty without good quality comparative research. More sophisticated techniques for recruitment may be more successful in future trials in this patient population.

An evaluation of the impact and costs of three strategies used to recruit acutely unwell young children to a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Background

Recruitment to primary care trials, particularly those involving young children, is known to be difficult. There are limited data available to inform researchers about the effectiveness of different trial recruitment strategies and their associated costs.

Purpose

To describe, evaluate, and investigate the costs of three strategies for recruiting febrile children to a community-based randomised trial of antipyretics.

Methods

The three recruitment strategies used in the trial were termed as follows: (1) ‘local’, where paediatric research nurses stationed in primary care sites invited parents of children to participate; (2) ‘remote’, where clinicians at primary care sites faxed details of potentially eligible children to the trial office; and (3) ‘community’, where parents, responding to trial publicity, directly contacted the trial office when their child was unwell.

Results

Recruitment rates increased in response to the sequential introduction of three recruitment strategies, which were supplemented by additional recruiting staff, flexible staff work patterns, and improved clinician reimbursement schemes. The three strategies yielded different randomisation rates. They also appeared to be interdependent and highly effective together. Strategy-specific costs varied from £297 to £857 per randomised participant and represented approximately 10% of the total trial budget.

Limitations

Because the recruitment strategies were implemented sequentially, it was difficult to measure their independent effects. The cost analysis was performed retrospectively.

Conclusions

Trial recruiter expertise and deployment of several interdependent, illness-specific strategies were key factors in achieving rapid recruitment of young children to a community-based randomised controlled trial (RCT). The ‘remote’ recruitment strategy was shown to be more cost-effective compared to ‘community’ and ‘local’ strategies in the context of this trial. Future trialists should report recruitment costs to facilitate a transparent evaluation of recruitment strategy cost-effectiveness.

The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. In the United States, 90% of men with prostate cancer are more than age 60 years, diagnosed by early detection with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test, and have disease believed confined to the prostate gland (clinically localized). Common treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include watchful waiting (WW), surgery to remove the prostate gland (radical prostatectomy), external-beam radiation therapy and interstitial radiation therapy (brachytherapy), and androgen deprivation. Little is known about the relative effectiveness and harms of treatments because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials. The Department of Veterans Affairs/National Cancer Institute/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Cooperative Studies Program Study #407:Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in 1994, is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with WW in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. We describe the study rationale, design, recruitment methods, and baseline characteristics of PIVOT enrollees. We provide comparisons with eligible men declining enrollment and men participating in another recently reported randomized trial of radical prostatectomy vs WW conducted in Scandinavia. We screened 13 022 men with prostate cancer at 52 US medical centers for potential enrollment. From these, 5023 met initial age, comorbidity, and disease eligibility criteria, and a total of 731 men agreed to participate and were randomized. The mean age of enrollees was 67 years. Nearly one-third were African American. Approximately 85% reported that they were fully active. The median PSA was 7.8ng/mL (mean 10.2ng/mL). In three-fourths of men, the primary reason for biopsy leading to a diagnosis of prostate cancer was a PSA elevation or rise. Using previously developed tumor risk categorizations incorporating PSA levels, Gleason histologic grade, and tumor stage, it was found that approximately 40% had low-risk, 34% had medium-risk, and 21% had high-risk prostate cancer based on local histopathology. Comparison to our national sample of eligible men declining PIVOT participation as well as to men enrolled in the Scandinavian trial indicated that PIVOT enrollees are representative of men being diagnosed and treated in the United States and quite different from men in the Scandinavian trial. PIVOT enrolled an ethnically diverse population representative of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States. Results will yield important information regarding the relative effectiveness and harms of surgery compared with WW for men with predominately PSA-detected clinically localized prostate cancer.

Presenting treatment options to men with clinically localized prostate cancer: the acceptability of active surveillance/monitoring

Presenting treatment options to men with localized prostate cancer is difficult because of the lack of definitive evidence and the range of treatment options available. Active surveillance and monitoring programs are now a recognized treatment option for men with low-risk localized prostate cancer, but many patients are not fully aware of the details of such programs, and most still opt for immediate radical (surgery or radiotherapy) treatment. The provision of high-quality information with decision aids has been shown to increase the acceptability of active surveillance/monitoring programs. This chapter outlines techniques for providing high-quality information about active surveillance/monitoring, based on the findings of a randomized controlled trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial has randomized over 1500 men between active monitoring, radical surgery, and radical radiotherapy by ensuring that information was tailored to men's existing knowledge and views. Care was taken with the content, order, and enthusiasm of the presentation of treatments by recruitment staff, and clinicians and other health professionals were supported to feel comfortable with being open about the uncertainties in the evidence and helped to rephrase terminology likely to be misinterpreted by patients. These techniques of information provision should be added to the use of decision aids to enable patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer in routine practice to reach well-informed and reasoned decisions about their treatment, including full consideration of active surveillance and monitoring programs.

Effect of child health status on parents' allowing children to participate in pediatric research

BACKGROUND

To identify motivational factors linked to child health status that affected the likelihood of parents' allowing their child to participate in pediatric research.

METHODS

Parents were invited to return their completed questionnaires anonymously to assess motivational factors and factors that might improve participation in pediatric research.

RESULTS

Of 573 eligible parents, 261 returned the completed questionnaires. Of these, 126 were parents of healthy children (group 1), whereas 135 were parents of sick children who were divided into two groups according to the severity of their pathology, i.e., 99 ambulatory children (group 2) and 36 nonambulatory children (group 3). The main factor motivating participation in a pediatric clinical research study was "direct benefits for their child" (87.7%, 100%, and 100% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The other factors differed significantly between the three groups, depending on the child's health status (all p < 0.05). Factors that might have a positive impact on parental consent to the participation of their child in a pediatric clinical research study differed significantly (χ2 test, all p ≤ 0.04), depending on the child's health status. The main factor was "a better understanding of the study and its regulation" for the healthy children and ambulatory sick children groups (31.2% and 82.1%, respectively), whereas this was the third factor for the nonambulatory sick children group (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative strategies should be developed based on a child's health status to improve information provision when seeking a child's participation in pediatric research. Parents would like to spend more time in discussions with investigators.

Parental consent to participation in a randomised trial in children: associated child, family, and physician factors

BACKGROUND

Low participation rates in randomised controlled trials involving children are almost a universal problem, leading to high cost and low statistical power. Trial, parent/family, child, and physician factors have been reported to influence parental willingness to consent for paediatric trials.

PURPOSE

To identify modifiable and unmodifiable factors associated with parental consent.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical characteristics of children and their families and physician characteristics associated with parental consent were evaluated in a recent randomised placebo-controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent recurrent urinary tract infection.

RESULTS

Of 1109 eligible children identified (mean age, 2.0 years), 412 parents (37.2%) consented. On a multivariate analysis, the only modifiable factor associated with consent was request for consent by a member of the research study team rather than by a member of the clinical team (risk ratio (RR) = 1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-2.9). The unmodifiable factors significantly associated with consent were age of the child (≥4 years) (RR = 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.4), presence of vesicoureteric reflux (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3-1.8), inpatient management of the index infection (RR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-0.9), and multiple (≥4) symptoms at presentation (RR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5).

LIMITATIONS

We have reported data from only one of the four participating centres in this trial. Data on non-consenters in other participating centres were not completely collected. Data on characteristics of the recruiting physician were limited. These findings are applicable for those considering a single randomised controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Parent, child, and physician factors are associated with consent for trial participation, with most not being modifiable. Having a member of the research study team approach the parent for consent appears to be the only feasible strategy for increasing recruitment to randomised trials in this setting.

Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

Background Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread problem. Provision of interventions aimed at supporting or incentivising clinicians may improve recruitment to RCTs. Objectives To quantify the effects of strategies aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in RCTs, complemented with a synthesis of qualitative evidence related to clinicians' attitudes towards recruiting to RCTs. Data sources A systematic review of English and non-English articles identified from: The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ebsco CINAHL, Index to Theses and Open SIGLE from 2001 to March 2011. Additional reports were identified through citation searches of included articles. Study eligibility criteria Quantitative studies were included if they evaluated interventions aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians or compared recruitment by different groups of clinicians. Information about host trial, study design, participants, interventions, outcomes and host RCT was extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using a standardised tool, the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Qualitative studies were included if they investigated clinicians' attitudes to recruiting patients to RCTs. All results/findings were extracted, and content analysis was carried out. Overarching themes were abstracted, followed by a metasummary analysis. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. Data extraction Data extraction was carried out by one researcher using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators, and verified by another. Results Eight quantitative studies were included describing four interventions and a comparison of recruiting clinicians. One study was rated as strong, one as moderate and the remaining six as weak when assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Effective interventions included the use of qualitative research to identify and overcome barriers to recruitment, reduction of the clinical workload associated with participation in RCTs and the provision of extra training and protected research time. Eleven qualitative studies were identified, and eight themes were abstracted from the data: understanding of research, communication, perceived patient barriers, patient-clinician relationship, effect on patients, effect on clinical practice, individual benefits for clinicians and methods associated with successful recruitment. Metasummary analysis identified the most frequently reported subthemes to be: difficulty communicating trial methods, poor understanding of research and priority given to patient well-being. Overall, the qualitative studies were found to be of good quality when assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Conclusions There were few high-quality trials that tested interventions to improve clinicians' recruitment activity in RCTs. The most promising intervention was the use of qualitative methods to identify and overcome barriers to clinician recruitment activity. More good quality studies of interventions are needed to add to the evidence base. The metasummary of qualitative findings identified understanding and communicating RCT methods as a key target for future interventions to improve recruitment. Reinforcement of the potential benefits, both for clinicians and for their patients, could also be a successful factor in improving recruitment. A bias was found towards investigating barriers to recruitment, so future work should also encompass a focus on successfully recruiting trials.

Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies

The European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality. The ongoing Comparison Arm for ProtecT (CAP) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluates prostate cancer screening effectiveness by comparing primary care centres allocated to a round of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing (intervention) or standard clinical care. Over 550 centres (around 450,000 men) were randomised in eight United Kingdom areas (2002-2008). Intervention group participants were also eligible for the ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) RCT evaluating active monitoring, radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy treatments for localised prostate cancer. In ProtecT, over 1500 of around 3000 men with prostate cancer were randomised from over 10,000 with an elevated PSA in around 111,000 attendees at clinics. Investigation of the psychological impact of screening in a sub-sample showed that 10% of men still experienced high distress up to 3 months following prostate biopsies (22/227), although most were relatively unaffected. The risk of prostate cancer with a raised PSA was lower if urinary symptoms were present (frequent nocturia odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.83) or if a repeat PSA decreased by > or = 20% prior to biopsy (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.52). Men aged 45-49 years attended PSA clinics less frequently (442/1299, 34%) in a nested cohort with a cancer detection rate of 2.3% (10/442). The CAP and ProtecT trials (ISRCTN92187251 and ISRCTN20141217) will help resolve the prostate cancer screening debate, define the optimum treatment for localised disease and generate evidence to improve men's health.

Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for clinically localised prostate cancer continues to impact on clinical decision-making. Two such options are radical prostatectomy (RP) and watchful waiting (WW). WW involves providing no initial treatment and monitoring the patient with the intention of providing palliative treatment if there is evidence of disease progression.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of RP versus WW for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Science Citation Index, DARE and LILACS were searched through 30 July 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of RP versus WW for clinically localised prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. Both trials commenced prior to the widespread availability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; hence the results may not be applicable to men with PSA-detected disease.One trial (N = 142), conducted in the US, was judged to be of poor quality. All cause (overall) mortality was not significantly different between RP and WW groups after fifteen years of follow up (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.9 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.43).The second trial (N = 695), conducted in Scandinavia, was judged to be of good quality. After 12 years of follow up, the trial results were compatible with a beneficial effect of RP on the risks of overall mortality, prostate cancer mortality and distant metastases compared with WW but the precise magnitude of the effect is uncertain as indicated by the width of the confidence intervals for all estimates (risk difference (RD) -7.1% (95% CI -14.7 to 0.5); RD -5.4% (95% CI -11.1 to 0.2); RD -6.7% (95% CI -13.2 to -0.2), respectively).        Compared to WW, RP increased the absolute risks of erectile dysfunction (RD 35% (95% CI 25 to 45)) and urinary leakage (RD 27% (95% CI 17 to 37)). These estimates must be interpreted cautiously as they are derived from data obtained from a self-administered questionnaire survey of a sample of the trial participants (N = 326), no baseline quality of life data were obtained and nerve-sparing surgery was not routinely performed on trial participants undergoing RP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The existing trials provide insufficient evidence to allow confident statements to be made about the relative beneficial and harmful effects of RP and WW for patients with localised prostate cancer. The results of ongoing trials should help to inform treatment decisions for men with screen-detected localised prostate cancer.

Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people's awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11-2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study's main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Trials within trials? Researcher, funder and ethical perspectives on the practicality and acceptability of nesting trials of recruitment methods in existing primary care trials

Background

Trials frequently encounter difficulties in recruitment, but evidence on effective recruitment methods in primary care is sparse. A robust test of recruitment methods involves comparing alternative methods using a randomized trial, 'nested' in an ongoing 'host' trial. There are potential scientific, logistical and ethical obstacles to such studies.

Methods

Telephone interviews were undertaken with four groups of stakeholders (funders, principal investigators, trial managers and ethics committee chairs) to explore their views on the practicality and acceptability of undertaking nested trials of recruitment methods. These semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty people were interviewed. Respondents were familiar with recruitment difficulties in primary care and recognised the case for 'nested' studies to build an evidence base on effective recruitment strategies. However, enthusiasm for this global aim was tempered by the challenges of implementation. Challenges for host studies included increasing complexity and management burden; compatibility between the host and nested study; and the impact of the nested study on trial design and relationships with collaborators. For nested recruitment studies, there were concerns that host study investigators might have strong preferences, limiting the nested study investigators' control over their research, and also concerns about sample size which might limit statistical power. Nested studies needed to be compatible with the main trial and should be planned from the outset. Good communication and adequate resources were seen as important.

Conclusions

Although research on recruitment was welcomed in principle, the issue of which study had control of key decisions emerged as critical. To address this concern, it appeared important to align the interests of both host and nested studies and to reduce the burden of hosting a recruitment trial. These findings should prove useful in devising a programme of research involving nested studies of recruitment interventions.

A qualitative study exploring practice nurses’ experience of participating in a primary care–based randomised controlled trial

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the views of practice nurses’ recruiting into a primary care–based randomised controlled trial, and to investigate factors that influence the success of trial recruitment. It is known that time pressures, forgetfulness and lack of interest in the research topic negatively influence recruitment into research trials by General Practitioners (GPs), but no studies appear to have explored practice nurses’ experience of recruiting into trials. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a non-random purposive sample of 10 practice nurses who had participated in recruiting patients for the trial, and data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Nurses who had been asked to take part in the study found it a positive experience, and had decided to take part because the area of research was of interest and could potentially benefit patients. Nurses who had been delegated the role of recruitment by the GP felt put upon and recruited less well. None of the nurses reported difficulties remembering to recruit patients and developed useful strategies to aid memory. Nurses often acted as gatekeepers, selecting which patients they offered the intervention to. Nurses with dedicated time for research recruited more successfully. For nurses who recruited during routine consultation, it was often the patient’s lack of interest in taking part in the trial, rather than time limitations that hindered recruitment. Overall, nurses were positive about recruiting into the trial, particularly if the research area could benefit patients and if directly asked to take part.

Population-based prostate-specific antigen testing in the UK leads to a stage migration of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine, within the UK, the stage and grade of prostate cancers that would be found through population-based prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and biopsy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In the 'Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment' trial (ProtecT), men aged 50-69 years were recruited from nine cities in the UK and from randomly selected practices of general practitioners. Those with a PSA level of >3 ng/mL were offered a prostate biopsy. Age, PSA, stage and grade at diagnosis of ProtecT participants with cancer were compared with contemporaneous incident cases aged 50-69 years (age-restricted Cancer Registry cases) registered with the Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre (ECRIC).

RESULTS

Within ProtecT, 94,427 men agreed to be tested (50% of men contacted), 8807 ( approximately 9%) had a raised PSA level and 2022 (23%) had prostate cancer; 229 ( approximately 12%) had locally advanced (T3 or T4) or metastatic cancers, the rest having clinically localized (T1c or T2) disease. Within ECRIC, 12,661 cancers were recorded over the same period; 3714 were men aged 50-69 years at diagnosis. Men in ProtecT had a lower age distribution and PSA level, and the cancers were of lower stage and grade (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). If population-based PSA testing were introduced in the UK, approximately 2660 men per 100,000 aged 50-69 years would be found to have prostate cancer, compared to current rates of approximately 130 per 100,000. If half of men accepted PSA testing, approximately 160,000 cancers would be found, compared to 30,000 diagnosed each year at present.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based PSA testing resulted in a significant downward stage and grade migration, and most such cancers were of low stage and grade, which could lead to risks of over-treatment for some men.

Using qualitative research methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: the Quartet study

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the optimum method for evaluating health care interventions, yet many fail to recruit sufficient participants in a timely manner. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) study employed qualitative research methods as part of a complex intervention to improve recruitment to the RCT. The Quartet (Qualitative research to improve recruitment to trials) study was set up to evalute whether the ProtecT study's success in increasing randomization rates could be replicated in other trials experiencing recruitment difficulties. This paper reports on the issues that emerged from the attempts to apply qualitative research methods to improve recruitment rates in RCTs collaborating with the Quartet team.

METHODS

The methods used were: investigation of RCT documents; semi-structured interviews and focus groups with RCT staff; audio-recording of recruitment appointments; and individual and group feedback sessions for RCT staff. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Barriers arose when we attempted to establish collaborations with RCTs. Difficulties were encountered in securing the commitment of all relevant staff because of poor communication between lead investigators and other staff as well as RCT staff's concerns about having recruitment appointments audio-recorded. Recruitment processes were often more complex than anticipated. Governance procedures took considerable time and resources, limiting the time available for data collection and implementation of the intervention before recruitment closure.

CONCLUSION

Straightforward replication of the ProtecT complex intervention was more complicated than expected. However, the study has increased understanding of RCT recruitment and identified ways to overcome barriers to collaboration. Such research is more easily undertaken in the feasibility stage of an RCT, and greater success will be achieved if the research is integrated into the everyday conduct of RCTs.

The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Ninety percent of men with prostate cancer are over aged 60 years, diagnosed by early detection with the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test and have disease believed confined to the prostate gland (clinically localized). Common treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include watchful waiting surgery to remove the prostate gland (radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation therapy and interstitial radiation therapy (brachytherapy) and androgen deprivation. Little is known about the relative effectiveness and harms of treatments due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials. The VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program Study #407: Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in 1994, is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We describe the study rationale, design, recruitment methods and baseline characteristics of PIVOT enrollees. We provide comparisons with eligible men declining enrollment and men participating in another recently reported randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting conducted in Scandinavia.

RESULTS

We screened 13,022 men with prostate cancer at 52 United States medical centers for potential enrollment. From these, 5023 met initial age, comorbidity and disease eligibility criteria and a total of 731 men agreed to participate and were randomized. The mean age of enrollees was 67 years. Nearly one-third were African-American. Approximately 85% reported they were fully active. The median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 7.8 ng/mL (mean 10.2 ng/mL). In three-fourths of men the primary reason for biopsy leading to a diagnosis of prostate cancer was a PSA elevation or rise. Using previously developed tumor risk categorizations incorporating PSA levels, Gleason histologic grade and tumor stage, approximately 43% had low risk, 36% had medium risk and 20% had high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison to our national sample of eligible men declining PIVOT participation as well as to men enrolled in the Scandinavian trial indicated that PIVOT enrollees are representative of men being diagnosed and treated in the U.S. and quite different from men in the Scandinavian trial.

CONCLUSIONS

PIVOT enrolled an ethnically diverse population representative of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States. Results will yield important information regarding the relative effectiveness and harms of surgery compared to watchful waiting for men with predominately PSA detected clinically localized prostate cancer.

Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Multicenter randomized trials are required for pragmatic evaluations of health care interventions, but recruitment is difficult. Systematic reviews failed to identify robust strategies to improve recruitment. We developed and evaluated a complex intervention to increase levels of randomization and informed consent.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial compares radical surgery, radical conformal radiotherapy, and active monitoring for men aged 50-69 years with localized prostate cancer. The intervention was developed using qualitative research methods (content, thematic and conversation analysis). Rates of randomization and immediate acceptance of allocation were measured every 6 months to evaluate the impact of the intervention.

RESULTS

The complex intervention comprised reviews of centers falling below study targets, training programmes, documents and individually tailored feedback. Over 65% of eligible participants consented to randomization. Trial participants became increasingly well informed as immediate acceptance of allocation rose from 65% to 81% between 2001 and 2005.

CONCLUSION

This complex intervention resulted in high levels of randomization and informed consent in a difficult trial. The generic aspects of the intervention could be applied to other trials to maximize randomization and informed consent, and allow the mounting of trials previously considered too difficult.

Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: issues arising in establishing research collaborations

INTRODUCTION

Strategies to improve recruitment to RCTs (randomised controlled trials) are limited. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) study successfully developed a complex intervention based on qualitative research methods to increase recruitment rates. The Quartet study (Qualitative Research to Improve Recruitment to RCTs) was established to evaluate whether the ProtecT qualitative methods could be transferred into other RCTs. This paper reports on the barriers and facilitators in setting up these collaborations.

METHODS

The Quartet study collaborated with five RCTs. Qualitative methods used were: interviews and focus groups with RCT staff; audio-recording recruitment interactions; and feedback sessions for RCT staff based on qualitative findings. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using content and thematic analyses. Issues arising during establishment of collaborations were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

Establishing collaborations proved challenging and not always surmountable. Difficulties were encountered in gaining agreement of RCT staff to participate because of central RCT staff's lack of authority over recruitment staff, poor communication within RCTs and recruiters' reluctance to have their practice scrutinised. The complexity of the recruitment process also hindered translation of ProtecT methods. Although Quartet enabled significant recruitment issues to surface, the bureaucratic tasks involved in securing governance approval delayed onset of collaborations, reducing the time to address issues and evaluate Quartet's impact.

DISCUSSION

The Quartet study established collaborations with a range of RCTs and gained valuable insights for future collaborations between qualitative researchers and RCTs. Qualitative research methods need to be included at the feasibility stage of a RCT or fully integrated into the RCT, as in the ProtecT study, with routine audio-recording for monitoring and training purposes. Quartet-like collaborations could then be established without delay, and recruitment processes of RCTs could become transparent, monitored and improved.

Choices for Surgery

Surgical treatment of prostate cancer has seen many improvements in the past two decades, including laparoscopy, robotic surgery, and better assessment of quality of life and functional results. The limits of surgery for locally advanced disease and after failure of radiotherapy have been better defined, together with the roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment. Patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer, reasonable life expectancy, and little or no co-morbidity are the best candidates for radical prostatectomy. This chapter reviews the different technical options for the treatment of prostate cancer, with their respective indications and functional and oncological results.

When "no" might not quite mean "no"; the importance of informed and meaningful non-consent: results from a survey of individuals refusing participation in a health-related research project

Background

Low participation rates can lead to sampling bias, delays in completion and increased costs. Strategies to improve participation rates should address reasons for non-participation. However, most empirical research has focused on participants' motives rather than the reasons why non-participants refuse to take part. In this study we investigated the reasons why older people choose not to participate in a research project.

Methods

Follow-up study of people living in Tayside, Scotland who had opted-out of a cross-sectional survey on activities in retirement. Eight hundred and eighty seven people aged 65–84 years were invited to take part in a home-based cross-sectional survey. Of these, 471 refused to take part. Permission was obtained to follow-up 417 of the refusers. Demographic characteristics of people who refused to take part and the reasons they gave for not taking part were collected.

Results

54% of those invited to take part in the original cross-sectional survey refused to do so. However, 61% of these individuals went on to participate in the follow-up study and provided reasons for their original refusal. For the vast majority of people initial non-participation did not reflect an objection to participating in research in principle but frequently stemmed from barriers or misunderstandings about the nature or process of the project itself. Only 28% indicated that they were "not interested in research". The meaningfulness of expressions of non-consent may therefore be called into question. Hierarchical log-linear modelling showed that refusal was independently influenced by age, gender and social class. However, this response pattern was different for the follow-up study in which reasons for non-participation in the first survey were sought. This difference in pattern and response rates supports the likely importance of recruitment issues that are research and context specific.

Conclusion

An expression of non-consent does not necessarily mean that a fully informed evaluation of the pros and cons of participation and non-participation has taken place. The meaningfulness of expressions of non-consent may therefore be a cause for concern and should be subject to further research. Many reasons for non-participation may be specific to a particular research topic or population. Information sheets should reflect this by going beyond standardised guidelines for their design and instead proactively seek out and address areas of concern or potential misunderstanding. The use of established behavioural theory in their design could also be considered.