1
|
Hudek N, Carroll K, Semchishen S, Vanderhout S, Presseau J, Grimshaw J, Fergusson DA, Gillies K, Graham ID, Taljaard M, Brehaut JC. Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2024; 24:85. [PMID: 38589803 PMCID: PMC11000410 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02195-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 03/03/2024] [Indexed: 04/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies. METHODS We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items. RESULTS We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%). CONCLUSIONS Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha Hudek
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Kelly Carroll
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Seana Semchishen
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Shelley Vanderhout
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Justin Presseau
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Jeremy Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Dean A Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Ian D Graham
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Monica Taljaard
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Jamie C Brehaut
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Arundel CE, Clark L. Do recruitment SWAT interventions have an impact on participant retention in randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Clin Trials 2024; 21:233-241. [PMID: 37877371 PMCID: PMC11005310 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231206283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence-based methods for randomised controlled trial recruitment and retention are extremely valuable. Despite increased testing of these through studies within a trial, there remains limited high-certainty evidence for effective strategies. In addition, there has been little consideration as to whether recruitment interventions also have an impact on participant retention. METHODS A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials using a recruitment intervention and which also assessed the impact of this on retention at any time point. Searches were conducted through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form. RESULTS A total of 7815 records were identified, resulting in 10 studies being included in the review. Most studies (n = 6, 60%) focussed on the information given to participants (n = 6, 60%), with two (20%) focussing on incentives, and two focussing on trial design and recruiter interventions. Due to intervention heterogeneity, none of the interventions could be meta-analysed. Only one study found any statistically significant effect of letters including a photograph (odds ratio: 5.40, 95% CI 1.12-26.15, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION Assessment of the impacts of recruitment strategies, evaluated in a SWAT, on retention of participants in the host trial remains limited. Assessment of the impact of recruitment interventions on retention is recommended to minimise future research costs and waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine E Arundel
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Laura Clark
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nickolls BJ, Relton C, Hemkens L, Zwarenstein M, Eldridge S, McCall SJ, Griffin XL, Sohanpal R, Verkooijen HM, Maguire JL, McCord KA. Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e075601. [PMID: 38458814 PMCID: PMC10928784 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Accepted: 11/24/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes. OBJECTIVE To examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts. DESIGN Scoping review. DATA SOURCES Searches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Reports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology. RESULTS A total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers. CONCLUSION This review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beverley Jane Nickolls
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Clare Relton
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Lars Hemkens
- Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
- Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin (METRICS-B), Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Merrick Zwarenstein
- Department of Family Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sandra Eldridge
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Stephen J McCall
- National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Center for Research on Population and Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Ras Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Xavier Luke Griffin
- Bone and Joint Health, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Ratna Sohanpal
- Centre for Primary Care, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Helena M Verkooijen
- University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jonathon L Maguire
- University of Toronto Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Apostolidou S, Ryan A, Kalsi JK, Singh N, Fallowfield L, McGuire AJ, Campbell S, Skates SJ, Dawnay A, Parmar M, Jacobs IJ. Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2023:1-38. [PMID: 37843101 PMCID: PMC10591208 DOI: 10.3310/cldc7214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. Future work There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. Trial registration ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Usha Menon
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Matthew Burnell
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sophia Apostolidou
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andy Ryan
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jatinderpal K Kalsi
- Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK
| | - Naveena Singh
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
| | | | | | - Steven J Skates
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Anne Dawnay
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Mahesh Parmar
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ian J Jacobs
- Department of Women's Cancer, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gillies K, Kearney A, Keenan C, Treweek S, Hudson J, Brueton VC, Conway T, Hunter A, Murphy L, Carr PJ, Rait G, Manson P, Aceves-Martins M. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:MR000032. [PMID: 33675536 PMCID: PMC8092429 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000032.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. MAIN RESULTS We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Anna Kearney
- Dept. of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Ciara Keenan
- Campbell UK & Ireland, Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University, Belfast, UK
| | - Shaun Treweek
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Jemma Hudson
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Valerie C Brueton
- Department of Adult Nursing, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College, London, UK
| | - Thomas Conway
- Clinical Research Facility Galway, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Andrew Hunter
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Louise Murphy
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Peter J Carr
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Greta Rait
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Manson
- Health Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|