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
|
Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, Jackson C, Taskila TK, Gardner H. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 2:MR000013. [PMID: 29468635 PMCID: PMC7078793 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000013.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 225] [Impact Index Per Article: 37.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison. MAIN RESULTS We identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaun Treweek
- University of AberdeenHealth Services Research UnitForesterhillAberdeenUKAB25 2ZD
| | - Marie Pitkethly
- University of DundeeNRS Primary Care NetworkThe Mackenzie BuildingKirsty Semple WayDundeeTaysideUKDD2 4BF
| | - Jonathan Cook
- University of OxfordNDORMSCentre for Statistics in MedicineNuffield Orthoapedic Centre, Windmill RdOxfordScotlandUKAB25 2ZD
| | - Cynthia Fraser
- University of AberdeenHealth Services Research UnitForesterhillAberdeenUKAB25 2ZD
| | - Elizabeth Mitchell
- Hull York Medical SchoolHertford BuildingUniversity of HullHullUKHU6 7RX
| | - Frank Sullivan
- University of St AndrewsDivision of Population & Behavioural ScienceNorth HaughUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUKKY16 9TF
| | - Catherine Jackson
- University of Central LancashireHarrington BuildingHA123PrestonUKPR1 2HE
| | - Tyna K Taskila
- The Work FoundationCentre for Workforce Effectiveness21 Palmer StreetLondonUKSW1V 3PF
| | - Heidi Gardner
- University of AberdeenHealth Services Research UnitForesterhillAberdeenUKAB25 2ZD
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ojha RP, Jackson BE, Lu Y, Burton M, Blair SE, MacDonald BR, Chu TC, Teigen KJ, Acosta M. Participation and retention can be high in randomized controlled trials targeting underserved populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 98:154-157. [PMID: 29183689 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2017] [Revised: 10/12/2017] [Accepted: 11/21/2017] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Rohit P Ojha
- Office of Clinical Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, UNT Health Science Center School of Public Health, 3500 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.
| | - Bradford E Jackson
- Office of Clinical Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, UNT Health Science Center School of Public Health, 3500 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA
| | - Yan Lu
- Center for Outcomes Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA
| | - Mandy Burton
- Center for Outcomes Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA
| | - Somer E Blair
- Center for Outcomes Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, UNT Health Science Center School of Public Health, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA
| | - Brooke R MacDonald
- Center for Outcomes Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA
| | - Tzu-Chun Chu
- Center for Outcomes Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA
| | - Kari J Teigen
- Center for Outcomes Research, JPS Health Network, 1500 South Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76014, USA
| | - Melissa Acosta
- Office of Clinical Research, JPS Health Network, Fort Worth, TX 76104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hobden B, Bryant J, Carey M, Sanson-Fisher R, Oldmeadow C. Computer tablet or telephone? A randomised controlled trial exploring two methods of collecting data from drug and alcohol outpatients. Addict Behav 2017; 71:111-117. [PMID: 28327379 DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2016] [Revised: 02/15/2017] [Accepted: 03/08/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Both computerised and telephone surveys have potential advantages for research data collection. The current study aimed to determine the: (i) feasibility, (ii) acceptability, and (iii) cost per completed survey of computer tablet versus telephone data collection for clients attending an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment clinic. DESIGN Two-arm randomised controlled trial. METHOD Clients attending a drug and alcohol outpatient clinic in New South Wales, Australia, were randomised to complete a baseline survey via computer tablet in the clinic or via telephone interview within two weeks of their appointment. All participants completed a three-month follow-up survey via telephone. RESULTS Consent and completion rates for the baseline survey were significantly higher in the computer tablet condition. The time taken to complete the computer tablet survey was lower (11min) than the telephone condition (17min). There were no differences in the proportion of consenters or completed follow-up surveys between the two conditions at the 3-month follow-up. Acceptability was high across both modes of data collection. The cost of the computer tablet condition was $67.52 greater per completed survey than the telephone condition. CONCLUSION There is a trade-off between computer tablet and telephone data collection. While both data collection methods were acceptable to participants, the computer tablet condition resulted in higher consent and completion rates at baseline, therefore yielding greater external validity, and was quicker for participants to complete. Telephone data collection was however, more cost-effective. Researchers should carefully consider the mode of data collection that suits individual study needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Breanne Hobden
- Health Behaviour Research Group, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia.
| | - Jamie Bryant
- Health Behaviour Research Group, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia
| | - Mariko Carey
- Health Behaviour Research Group, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia
| | - Rob Sanson-Fisher
- Health Behaviour Research Group, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia
| | - Christopher Oldmeadow
- Public Health Stream, Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Newcastle, HMRI Building, New South Wales 2308, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Fradgley E, Hobden B, Zucca A, Henskens F, Searles A, Webb B, Oldmeadow C. A consumer register: an acceptable and cost-effective alternative for accessing patient populations. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16:134. [PMID: 27724888 PMCID: PMC5057257 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0238-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2016] [Accepted: 09/29/2016] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Population-based registries are increasingly used to recruit patient samples for research, however, they have several limitations including low consent and participation rates, and potential selection bias. To improve access to samples for research, the utility of a new model of recruitment termed the ‘Consumer Register’, that allows for direct patient recruitment from hospitals, was examined. This paper reports: (i) consent rates onto the register; (ii) preferred methods and frequency of contact; and (iii) the feasibility of establishing the register, including: (a) cost per person recruited to the register; (b) the differential cost and consent rates of volunteer versus paid data collectors; and (c) participant completion rates. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in five outpatient clinics in Australia. Patients were approached by volunteers or paid data collectors and asked to complete a touch-screen electronic survey. Consenting individuals were asked to indicate their willingness and preferences for enrolment onto a research register. Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient preferences and linear regression used to model the success of volunteer versus paid data collectors. The opportunity and financial costs of establishing the register were calculated. Results A total of 1947 patients (80.6 %) consented to complete the survey, of which, 1486 (76.3 %) completed the questionnaire. Of the completers, the majority (69.4 %, or 1032 participants) were willing to be listed on the register and preferred to be contacted by email (50.3 %). Almost 39 % of completers were willing to be contacted three or more times in a 12 month period. The annual opportunity cost of resources consumed by the register was valued at $37,187, giving an opportunity cost per person recruited to the register of $36. After amortising fixed costs, the annual financial outlay was $23,004 or $22 per person recruited to the register. Use of volunteer data collectors contributed to an annual saving of $14,183, however paid data collectors achieved significantly higher consent rates. Successful enrolment onto the register was completed for 42 % of the sample. Conclusions A Consumer Register is a promising and feasible alternative to population-based registries, with the majority of participants willing to be contacted multiple times via low-resource methods such as email. There is an effectiveness/cost trade off in the use of paid versus volunteer data collectors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Bryant
- Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia.
| | - Rob Sanson-Fisher
- Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia
| | - Elizabeth Fradgley
- Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia
| | - Breanne Hobden
- Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia
| | - Alison Zucca
- Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour and Hunter Medical Research Institute, HMRI Building, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia
| | - Frans Henskens
- Distributed Computing Research Group; School of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour; University of Newcastle, New South Wales, 2308, Australia
| | - Andrew Searles
- Health Research Economics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, 2305, Australia
| | - Brad Webb
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, 2305, Australia
| | - Christopher Oldmeadow
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, 2305, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gustafsson E, Litström E, Berterö C, Drott J. Reliability testing of oxaliplatin-associated neurotoxicity questionnaire (OANQ), a pilot study. Support Care Cancer 2015; 24:747-754. [PMID: 26137985 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2838-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2015] [Accepted: 06/22/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- E Gustafsson
- Department of Surgery and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden
| | - E Litström
- Department of Surgery and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden
| | - C Berterö
- Division of Nursing Science, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden
| | - J Drott
- Department of Surgery and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden.
- Division of Nursing Science, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|