Projection of participant recruitment to primary care research: a qualitative study

Enhancing opportunistic recruitment and retention in primary care trials: lessons learned from a qualitative study embedded in the Cranberry for Urinary Tract Infection (CUTI) feasibility trial

Background

Opportunistic recruitment in primary care is challenging due to the inherent unpredictability of incident conditions, and workload and time pressures. Many clinical trials do not recruit to target, leading to equivocal answers to research questions. Learning from the experiences of patients and recruiters to trials of incident conditions has the potential to improve recruitment and retention to future trials, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of research findings. The aim of this research was to learn from the trial experiences of UTI patients and recruiters to the Cranberry for UTI (CUTI) trial, to help plan an adequately powered trial of similar design.

Methods

One-to-one semi-structured interviews were embedded within the CUTI feasibility trial, an open-label, randomised feasibility trial of cranberry extract for symptoms of acute, uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) in primary care. Interviews were conducted with a sample of: CUTI trial participants; non-CUTI trial UTI patients; and, recruiters to the CUTI trial. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty-six patients with UTI and eight recruiters (nurses and GPs) to the CUTI trial were interviewed. Three themes were developed around: reasons for participating in research; barriers to opportunistic recruitment; and, UTI patients’ experiences of trial procedures. Recruiters found that targeted electronic prompts directed at healthcare practitioners based in clinics where patients with incident conditions were likely to present (e.g. minor illness clinic) were more effective than generic prompts (e.g. desk prompts) at filtering patients from their usual clinical pathway to research clinics. Using a script to explain the delayed antibiotic trial group to patients was found to be helpful, and may have served to boost recruitment. For UTI patients, using an electronic diary to rate their symptoms was considered an acceptable medium, and often preferable to using a paper diary or mobile phone application.

Conclusions

The use of targeted prompts directed at clinicians, a script to explain trial groups that may be deemed less desirable, and an appropriate diary format for patient-reported outcomes, may help to improve trial recruitment and retention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01796-7.

Identification of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation using a machine learning risk-prediction algorithm and diagnostic testing (PULsE-AI) in primary care: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial in England

Aims

The aim of the PULsE-AI trial was to assess the effectiveness of a machine learning risk-prediction algorithm in conjunction with diagnostic testing for identifying undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care in England.

Methods and results

Eligible participants (aged ≥30 years without AF diagnosis; n = 23 745) from six general practices in England were randomized into intervention and control arms. Intervention arm participants, identified by the algorithm as high risk of undiagnosed AF (n = 944), were invited for diagnostic testing (n = 256 consented); those who did not accept the invitation, and all control arm participants, were managed routinely. The primary endpoint was the proportion of AF, atrial flutter, and fast atrial tachycardia diagnoses during the trial (June 2019-February 2021) in high-risk participants. Atrial fibrillation and related arrhythmias were diagnosed in 5.63% and 4.93% of high-risk participants in intervention and control arms, respectively {odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.15 (0.77-1.73), P = 0.486}. Among intervention arm participants who underwent diagnostic testing (28.1%), 9.41% received AF and related arrhythmia diagnoses [vs. 4.93% (control); OR (95% CI): 2.24 (1.31-3.73), P = 0.003].

Conclusion

The AF risk-prediction algorithm accurately identified high-risk participants in both arms. While the proportions of AF and related arrhythmia diagnoses were not significantly different between high-risk arms, intervention arm participants who underwent diagnostic testing were twice as likely to receive arrhythmia diagnoses compared with routine care. The algorithm could be a valuable tool to select primary care groups at high risk of undiagnosed AF who may benefit from diagnostic testing.

Recruitment to a large scale randomised controlled clinical trial in primary care: the Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial (HEAT)

Background

The Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial (HEAT) is a multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial investigating whether Helicobacter (H.) pylori eradication reduces hospitalisation for peptic ulcer bleeding. Recruited participants were aged 60 and over and taking aspirin (≤325 mg daily) for at least four months prior to consent. Based on results of a pilot study, a sample size calculation predicted 6600 H. pylori-positive randomised participants would be required, from 33,000 volunteers, recruited from 170,000 invited patients. Methodology was therefore designed for recruitment of large numbers of patients from primary care using a novel electronic search tool, automated mail-out and electronic follow-up. Recruitment started in 2012 and completed in 2017.

Methods

All participants were recruited from GP practices, with assistance from the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN). H. pylori-positive participants were randomised to one week of eradication treatment or placebo. Recruitment was managed using a bespoke web-based database that communicated directly with a programmed search tool downloaded at participating practices. The primary endpoint is hospitalisation due to peptic ulcer bleeding. The trial will end when 87 adjudicated events have occurred, identified from searches of GP databases, review of secondary care admission data and mortality data, and reported events from randomised participants and GPs.

Results

HEAT has recruited participants from 1208 GP practices across the UK. Of the 188,875 invitation letters sent, 38,771 returned expressions of interest. Of these, 30,166 patients were consented to the trial, of whom 5355 H. pylori-positive participants (17.8% of those consented) were randomised.

Mean age at consent was 73.1 ± 6.9 (SD) years and 72.2% of participants were male. Of the randomised (H. pylori-positive) participants, 531 have died (as of 17 Sep 2020); none of the deaths was due to trial treatment.

Conclusion

The HEAT trial methodology has demonstrated that recruitment of large numbers of patients from primary care is attainable, with the assistance of the UKCRN, and could be applied to other clinical outcomes studies.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; registration number NCT01506986. Registered on 10 Jan 2012.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06054-w.

Clinical trial site identification practices and the use of electronic health records in feasibility evaluations: An interview study in the Nordic countries

INTRODUCTION

Feasibility evaluations are performed to create the best possible starting point for the set-up and execution of a clinical trial, and to identify any obstacles for successful trial conduct. New digital technologies can provide various types of data for use in feasibility evaluations. There is a need to identify and compare such data sources for trial site identification and for evaluating the sites' patient recruitment potential. Especially, information is needed on the use of electronic health records. We investigated how different data sources are used by pharmaceutical companies operating in the Nordic countries for identifying trial sites and for evaluating their potential to recruit trial participants.

METHODS

This was a semi-structured qualitative interview study with 21 participants from pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations operating in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Qualitative content analysis was applied.

RESULTS

For identifying countries and trial sites on a global level, the trial sponsors mostly used databases on previous trial performance. The use of electronic health record data was very limited. Sites' and investigators' visibility in various databases was seen as fundamental for their countries becoming selected into new clinical trials. For estimating the sites' recruitment projections, most sites were seen to base their patient count estimates solely on their previous experience. Some sites had reviewed their electronic health record data, which was considered to increase the accuracy of their recruitment estimates and these sites' attractivity. Along with dialogs with investigators, the sponsors used various data sources to validate the investigators' estimates. Legislative obstacles were seen to hinder the use of electronic health record queries for estimation of patient counts.

CONCLUSION

Visibility in the databases used by trial sponsors is crucial for the countries and sites to be identified. Site selection appears to be based on trust and relationships built from experience, but electronic data provide the support upon which the trust is based. Estimation of the number of potential trial participants is a complex and time-consuming process for both investigators and sponsors. Sponsors seem to favour sites who could support their patient count estimates with electronic health record data as they were quicker in providing the estimates and more reliable than sites with no electronic health record evidence. The patient count evaluation process could be simplified, accelerated and made more reliable with more systematic use of electronic health record evidence in the feasibility evaluation phase. This would increase the accuracy of the patient count estimates and, on its part, contribute to improved recruitment success.

Acupuncture for combat post-traumatic stress disorder: trial development and methodological approach for a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a significant public health problem, affecting approximately 7% of the general population and 13–18% of the combat Veteran population. The first study using acupuncture for PTSD in a civilian population showed large pre- to post-treatment effects for an empirically developed verum protocol, which was equivalent to group cognitive behavior therapy and superior to a wait-list control. The primary objective of this study is to determine both clinical and biological effects of verum acupuncture for combat-related PTSD in treatment-seeking US Veterans.

Methods

This is a two-arm, parallel-group, prospective randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. The experimental condition is verum acupuncture and the placebo control is sham (minimal) acupuncture in 1-h sessions, twice a week for 12 weeks. Ninety subjects will provide adequate power and will be allocated to group by an adaptive randomization procedure. The primary outcome is change in PTSD symptom severity from pre- to post-treatment. The secondary biological outcome is change from pre- to post-treatment in psychophysiological response, startle by electromyographic (EMG) eyeblink. Assessments will be conducted at pre-, mid-, post-, and 1-month post-treatment, blind to group allocation. Intent-to-treat analyses will be conducted.

Discussion

The study results will be definitive because both clinical and biological outcomes will be assessed and correlated. Issues such as the number needed for recruitment and improvement, use of sham acupuncture, choice of biological measure, and future research need will be discussed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02869646. Registered on 17 August 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05394-3.

Recruitment challenges in stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of trialists' perspectives using Framework analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the underlying reasons for recruitment difficulties to stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials from the perspective of trialists.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and Framework analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation trialists across 13 countries with a range of clinical and research experience.

METHODS

Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out. Purposeful sampling ensured a range of opinions were gathered from across the international stroke rehabilitation research community. Using Framework analysis, the analytical framework was formed by three researchers and tested before being applied to the total dataset.

RESULTS

Three themes described the trialists' perception of the underlying reasons for recruitment difficulties: (i) decision making, (ii) importance of recruiters and (iii) a broken system. Trialists described frequently disregarding evidence in favour of prior research experiences when planning randomized controlled trial recruitment. All felt that the relationship between the research and clinical teams was vital to ensure recruiters prioritized and found value in recruitment to the trial. Experienced trialists were frustrated by the lack of reporting of the reality of running trials, research governance demands and the feeling that they had to deliberately underestimate recruitment timeframes to secure funding.

CONCLUSION

Stroke rehabilitation trialists described recruitment difficulties which may be related to their experiential based recruitment decision making, a lack of understanding of how best to incentivize and maintain relationships with recruiters and unrealistic bureaucratic expectations both in terms of gaining funding and research governance.

Statistical models to predict recruitment in clinical trials were rarely used by statisticians in UK and European networks

OBJECTIVE

Identify the current practice for recruitment prediction and monitoring within clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Chief investigators (CIs) were surveyed to identify data sources and adjustments made to support recruitment prediction. Statisticians were surveyed to determine methods and adjustments used when predicting and monitoring recruitment. Participants were identified from the National Institute for Health Research recently funded studies, the UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trial Units network or by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network.

RESULTS

A total of 51 CIs (UK = 32, ECRIN = 19) and 104 statisticians (UK = 51, ECRIN = 53) were contacted. Response rates varied (CIs UK = 53% ECRIN = 32%; statisticians UK = 98% ECRIN = 36%). Multiple data sources are used to support recruitment rates, most commonly audit data from multiple sites. Variation in individual site recruitment rates are frequently incorporated, but staggered site openings were featured more commonly among UK respondents. Simple prediction methods are preferred to rarely used statistical models. Lack of familiarity with statistical methods are barriers to their use with evidence needed to justify the time required to support their implementation.

CONCLUSION

Simplistic methods will continue as the mainstay of prediction; however, generation of evidence supporting the benefits of complex statistical models should promote their implementations. Multiple data sources to support recruitment prediction are being used, and further work on the quality of these data is needed. Pressure to be optimistic about recruitment rates for the trial to be attractive to funders was felt by a sizable minority.

Challenges in the design, planning and implementation of trials evaluating group interventions

Background

Group interventions are interventions delivered to groups of people rather than to individuals and are used in healthcare for mental health recovery, behaviour change, peer support, self-management and/or health education. Evaluating group interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) presents trialists with a set of practical problems, which are not present in RCTs of one-to-one interventions and which may not be immediately obvious.

Methods

Case-based approach summarising Sheffield trials unit’s experience in the design and implementation of five group interventions. We reviewed participant recruitment and attrition, facilitator training and attrition, attendance at the group sessions, group size and fidelity aspects across five RCTs.

Results

Median recruitment across the five trials was 3.2 (range 1.7–21.0) participants per site per month. Group intervention trials involve a delay in starting the intervention for some participants, until sufficient numbers are available to start a group. There was no evidence that the timing of consent, relative to randomisation, affected post-randomisation attrition which was a matter of concern for all trial teams. Group facilitator attrition was common in studies where facilitators were employed by the health system rather than the by the grant holder and led to the early closure of one trial; research sites responded by training ‘back-up’ and new facilitators. Trials specified that participants had to attend a median of 62.5% (range 16.7%–80%) of sessions, in order to receive a ‘therapeutic dose’; a median of 76.7% (range 42.9%–97.8%) received a therapeutic dose. Across the five trials, 75.3% of all sessions went ahead without the pre-specified ideal group size. A variety of methods were used to assess the fidelity of group interventions at a group and individual level across the five trials.

Conclusion

This is the first paper to provide an empirical basis for planning group intervention trials. Investigators should expect delays/difficulties in recruiting groups of the optimal size, plan for both facilitator and participant attrition, and consider how group attendance and group size affects treatment fidelity.

Trial registration

ISRCTN17993825 registered on 11/10/2016, ISRCTN28645428 registered on 11/04/2012, ISRCTN61215213 registered on 11/05/2011, ISRCTN67209155 registered on 22/03/2012, ISRCTN19447796 registered on 20/03/2014.

A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that fail to meet their recruitment target risk increasing research waste. Acute stroke RCTs experience notable recruitment issues. The efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs has not been explored.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore recruitment efficiency and the trial features associated with efficient recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic review of stroke rehabilitation RCTs published between 2005 and 2015 identified in a search of the Cochrane Stroke Group (CSG) Trials Register from 35 electronic databases (e.g. Medline, CINAHL; EMBASE), clinical trial registers, and hand-searching. Inclusion criteria are stroke rehabilitation intervention, delivered by a member of the rehabilitation team, and clinically relevant environment. We extracted data on recruitment efficiency and trial features.

RESULTS

We screened 12,939 titles, 1270 abstracts and 788 full texts, before extracting data from 512 included RCTs (n = 28,804 stroke survivor participants). This is the largest systematic review of recruitment to date. A third of stroke survivors screened consented to participate (median 34% (IQR 14-61), on average sites recruited 1.5 participants per site per month (IQR 0.71-3.22), and one in twenty (6% (IQR 0-13) dropped out during the RCT. Almost half (48%) of those screened in the community were recruited compared to hospital settings (27%). Similarly, almost half (47%) those screened at least 6 months after stroke participated, compared to 23% of stroke survivors screened within a month of stroke. When one recruiter screened multiple sites, a median of one stroke survivor was recruited every 2 months compared to more than two per month when there was a dedicated recruiter per site. RCT recruitment was significantly faster per site, with fewer dropouts, for trials conducted in Asia (almost three stroke survivors monthly; 2% dropout) compared to European trials (approximately one stroke survivor monthly; 7% dropout).

CONCLUSIONS

One third of stroke survivors screened were randomised to rehabilitation RCTs at a rate of between one and two per month, per site. One in twenty did not complete the trial. Our findings will inform recruitment plans of future stroke rehabilitation RCTs. Limited reporting of recruitment details restricted the subgroup analysis performed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42016033067.

Using evidence when planning for trial recruitment: An international perspective from time-poor trialists

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting participants to trials is challenging. To date, research has focussed on improving recruitment once the trial is underway, rather than planning strategies to support it, e.g. developing trial information leaflets together with people like those to be recruited. We explored whether people involved with participant recruitment have explicit planning strategies; if so, how these are developed, and if not, what prevents effective planning.

METHODS

Design: Individual qualitative semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a Framework approach, and themes linked through comparison of data within and across stakeholder groups. Participants: 23 international trialists (UK, Canada, South Africa, Italy, the Netherlands); 11 self-identifying as 'Designers'; those who design recruitment methods, and 12 self-identifying as 'Recruiters'; those who recruit participants. Interviewees' had recruitment experience spanning diverse interventions and clinical areas. Setting: Primary, secondary and tertiary-care sites involved in trials, academic institutions, and contract research organisations supporting pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

To varying degrees, respondents had prospective strategies for recruitment. These were seldom based on rigorous evidence. When describing their recruitment planning experiences, interviewees identified a range of influences that they believe impacted success: The timing of recruitment strategy development relative to the trial start date, and who is responsible for recruitment planning.The methods used to develop trialists' recruitment strategy design and implementation skills, and when these skills are gained (i.e. before the trial or throughout).The perceived barriers and facilitators to successful recruitment planning; and how trialists modify practice when recruitment is poor.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents from all countries considered limited time and disproportionate approvals processes as major challenges to recruitment planning. Poor planning is a mistake that trialists live with throughout the trial. The experiences of our participants suggest that effective recruitment requires strategies to increase the time for trial planning, as well as access to easily implementable evidence-based strategies.

Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Background

Increasingly, pragmatic randomised controlled trials are being used to evaluate surgical interventions, although they present particular difficulties in regards to recruitment and retention.

Methods

Procedures and processes related to implementation of a multi-centre pragmatic surgical randomised controlled trial are discussed. In this surgical trial, forecasting of consent rates based on similar trials and micro-costing of study activities with research partners were undertaken and a video was produced targeting recruiting staff with the aim of aiding recruitment. The baseline assessments were reviewed to ensure the timing did not impact on the outcome. Attrition due to procedure waiting time was monitored and data were triangulated for the primary outcome to ensure adequate follow-up data.

Results

Forecasting and costing ensured that the recruitment window was of adequate length and adequate resource was available for study procedures at multiple clinics in each hospital. Recruiting staff found the recruitment video useful. The comparison of patient-reported data collected prior to randomisation and prior to treatment provided confidence in the baseline data. Knowledge of participant dropout due to delays in treatment meant we were able to increase the recruitment target in a timely fashion, and along with the triangulation of data sources, this ensured adequate follow-up of randomised participants.

Conclusions

This paper provides a range of evidence-based and experience-based approaches which, collectively, resulted in meeting our study objectives and from which lessons may be transferable.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN41394716. Registered on 10 May 2012.

UKCRN Study ID: 12486.

Intensification to injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes: mixed methods study (protocol)

BACKGROUND

In the UK, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is largely managed in primary care. Delay in the intensification to injectable therapy, a form of clinical inertia, is associated with worse glycaemic control. UK general practice is highly computerised, with care being recorded on computerised medical record systems; this allows for quantitative analysis of clinical care but not of the underpinning decision-making process. The aim of this study is to investigate perceptions of patients and clinicians in primary care on the initiation of injectable therapies in T2D, and the context within which those decisions are made.

METHODS

This is a mixed methods study, taking a "realist evaluation" approach. The qualitative components comprise focus groups, interviews, and video recordings of simulated surgeries; the quantitative analysis: an overview of participating practices, elements of the video recording, and an online survey. We will recruit primary care clinicians (general practitioners and nurses) and patients from a representative sample of practices within the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. Participants will be patients with T2D, and primary care clinicians. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. The simulated surgeries will include cases that might be escalated to injectable therapy. The consultation will be reviewed using the Calgary-Cambridge model to assess communication and determination of adherence to national prescribing guidelines. We will conduct multi-channel video recording including screen capture, clinician and patient facial expressions, wide angle view of the consultation, and the computerised medical record screen. This allows annotation and qualitative analysis of the video recordings, and statistical analyses for the quantitative data. We will also conduct an online survey of primary care clinicians' attitudes to, and perceptions of, initiation of injectable therapies, which will be analysed using summary statistics.

DISCUSSION

Results aim to provide a detailed insight into the dynamic two-way decision-making process underpinning use of injectable therapy for T2D. The study will provide insights into clinical practice and enable the development of training, interventions and guidelines that may facilitate, where appropriate, the intensification to injectable therapy.

Optimising recruitment into trials using an internal pilot

Background

Recruitment to trials can be difficult. Despite careful planning and research that outlines ways to improve recruitment, many trials do not achieve their target on time and require extensions of funding or time.

Methods

We describe a trial in which an internal pilot with embedded qualitative research was used to improve recruitment processes and inform recruitment projections for the main trial. At the end of the pilot, it was clear that the sample size would not be met on time. Three steps were taken to optimise recruitment: (1) adjustments were made to the recruitment process using information from the qualitative work done in the pilot and advice from a patient and public involvement group, (2) additional recruiting sites were included based on site feasibility assessments and (3) a projection equation was used to estimate recruitment at each site and overall trial recruitment.

Results

Qualitative work during the pilot phase allowed us to develop strategies to optimise recruitment during the main trial, which were incorporated into patient information packs, the standard operating procedures and training sessions with recruiters. From our experience of feasibility assessments, we developed a checklist of recommended considerations for feasibility assessments. For recruitment projections, we developed a four-stage projection equation that estimates the number of participants recruited using a conversion rate of the number randomised divided by the number screened.

Conclusions

This work provides recommendations for feasibility assessments and an easy-to-use projection tool, which can be applied to other trials to help ensure they reach the required sample size.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361. Registered on 6 September 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3296-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recruitment of older adults to three preventative lifestyle improvement studies

BACKGROUND

Recruiting isolated older adults to clinical trials is complex, time-consuming and difficult. Previous studies have suggested querying existing databases to identify appropriate potential participants. We aim to compare recruitment techniques (general practitioner (GP) mail-outs, community engagement and clinician referrals) used in three randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies assessing the feasibility or effectiveness of two preventative interventions in isolated older adults (the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years interventions).

METHODS

During the three studies (the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, the Lifestyle Matters RCT, the Putting Life In Years RCT) data were collected about how participants were recruited. The number of letters sent by GP surgeries for each study was recorded. In the Lifestyle Matters RCT, we qualitatively interviewed participants and intervention facilitators at 6 months post randomisation to seek their thoughts on the recruitment process.

RESULTS

Referrals were planned to be the main source of recruitment in the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, but due to a lack of engagement from district nurses, community engagement was the main source of recruitment. District nurse referrals and community engagement were also utilised in the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years RCTs; both mechanisms yielded few participants. GP mail-outs were the main source of recruitment in both the RCTs, but of those contacted, recruiting yield was low (< 3%). Facilitators of the Lifestyle Matters intervention questioned whether the most appropriate individuals had been recruited. Participants recommended that direct contact with health professionals would be the most beneficial way to recruit.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment to the Lifestyle Matters RCT did not mirror recruitment to the feasibility study of the same intervention. Direct district nurse referrals were not effective at recruiting participants. The majority of participants were recruited via GP mail-outs, which may have led to isolated individuals not being recruited to the trials. Further research is required into alternative recruitment techniques, including respondent-driven sampling plus mechanisms which will promote health care professionals to recruit vulnerable populations to research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN28645428 (Putting Life In Years RCT). Registered on 11 April 2012; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN67209155 (Lifestyle Matters RCT). Registered on 22 March 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03054311 (Lifestyle Matters feasibility study). Registered retrospectively on 19 January 2017.

Impact of a deferred recruitment model in a randomised controlled trial in primary care (CREAM study)

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of participants is particularly challenging in primary care, with less than a third of randomised controlled trials (RCT) achieving their target within the original time frame. Participant identification, consent, randomisation and data collection can all be time-consuming. Trials recruiting an incident, as opposed to a prevalent, population may be particularly affected. This paper describes the impact of a deferred recruitment model in a RCT of antibiotics for children with infected eczema in primary care, which required the recruitment of cases presenting acutely.

METHODS

Eligible children were identified by participating general practitioners (GPs) and referred to a study research nurse, who then visited them at home. This allowed the consent and recruitment processes to take place outside the general practice setting. Information was recorded about patients who were referred and recruited, or if not, the reasons for non-recruitment. Data on recruitment challenges were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with a sample of participating GPs. Data were thematically analysed to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Of the children referred to the study 34% (58/171) were not recruited - 48% (28/58) because of difficulties arranging a baseline visit within the defined time frame, 31% (18/58) did not meet the study inclusion criteria at the time of nurse assessment, and 21% (12/58) declined participation. GPs had positive views about the recruitment process, reporting that parents valued and benefitted from additional contact with a nurse. GPs felt that the deferred recruitment model did not negatively impact on the study.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs and parents recognised the benefits of deferred recruitment, but these did not translate into enhanced recruitment of participants. The model resulted in the loss of a third of children who were identified by the GP as eligible, but not subsequently recruited to the study. If the potential for improving outcomes in primary care through complex studies is to be realised, new approaches to recruitment into primary care trials need to be developed and evaluated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN96705420 . Registered on 27 June 2012.

Discontinuation of a randomised controlled trial in general practice due to unsuccessful patient recruitment

Background

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice, recruiting incident patients with (sub)acute sciatica, was discontinued because of insufficient recruitment.

Aim

To describe factors that influenced the recruitment process and ultimately led to discontinuation of this trial, and to enable others to learn from this experience.

Design & setting

A pragmatic RCT was designed to compare two pain medication prescription strategies for treatment of (sub)acute sciatica in general practice. After 1 year of patient recruitment, the trial was prematurely terminated.

Method

To analyse the underperforming recruitment, patient information systems of 20 general practices were screened twice a month to search for eligible patients and identify reasons for non-eligibility. Secondly, after study termination, an open question was distributed to the participating GPs for their views on the recruitment process.

Results

A total of 116 GPs from 37 general practices collaborated in the trial. Only eight of 234 patients were included after 12 months. The 22 GPs who offered their opinion on the main reasons for unsuccessful recruitment considered that these were the low incidence rate and strict eligibility criteria, a strong patient and/or GP preference, and time constraints.

Conclusion

For this RCT, multiple factors were related to recruitment problems but it remains unknown which determinants prevailed. As the research question is unanswered but remains relevant, it is recommended that GPs' daily practice is taken into account when designing an RCT, a pilot study should be performed for feasibility of recruitment, and GP assistants should be involved at an early stage.

Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme

BACKGROUND

Substantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope.

OBJECTIVES

To review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

HTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Target sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data).

RESULTS

This review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43-2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79-97%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.

Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation.

METHODS

We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care.

RESULTS

The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care.

The PULSAR primary care protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to test a training intervention for general practitioners in recovery-oriented practice to optimize personal recovery in adult patients

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) in Australia play a central role in the delivery of mental health care. This article describes the PULSAR (Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery) Primary Care protocol, a novel mixed methods evaluation of a training intervention for GPs in recovery-oriented practice. The aim of the intervention is to optimize personal recovery in patients consulting study GPs for mental health issues.

METHODS

The intervention mixed methods design involves a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial testing the outcomes of training in recovery-oriented practice, together with an embedded qualitative study to identify the contextual enablers and challenges to implementing recovery-oriented practice. The project is conducted in Victoria, Australia between 2013 and 2017. Eighteen general practices and community health centers are randomly allocated to one of two steps (nine months apart) to start an intervention comprising GP training in the delivery of recovery-oriented practice. Data collection consists of cross-sectional surveys collected from patients of participating GPs at baseline, and again at the end of Steps 1 and 2. The primary outcome is improvement in personal recovery using responses to the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery. Secondary outcomes are improvements in patient-rated measures of personal recovery and wellbeing, and of the recovery-oriented practice they have received, using the INSPIRE questionnaire, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. Participant data will be analyzed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each study time point. Another per-protocol dataset will contain all data time-stamped according to the date of intervention received at each cluster site. Qualitative interviews with GPs and patients at three and nine months post-training will investigate experiences and challenges related to implementing recovery-oriented practice in primary care.

DISCUSSION

Recovery-oriented practice is gaining increasing prominence in mental health service delivery and the outcomes of such an approach within the primary care sector for the first time will be evaluated in this project. If findings are positive, the intervention has the potential to extend recovery-oriented practice to GPs throughout the community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( ACTRN12614001312639 ). Registered: 8 August 2014.