Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443636›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials.

J M Rendell, R D Merritt, J R Geddes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J M RendellUniversity of Oxford, Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, OX3 7JX. jennifer.rendell@psych.ox.ac.uk
R D Merritt
J R Geddes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients and clinicians need reliable, up-to-date information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the costs and benefits of treatments. Recruitment difficulties arise when clinicians do not invite patients to participate in trials.

objectivesPrimary: to assess the evidence for the effect of disincentives and incentives on the extent to which clinicians invite eligible patients to participate in RCTs of healthcare interventions. Secondary: to assess the evidence in relation to stated willingness to invite participation. SEARCH STRATEGY: 1. The Cochrane Methodology Register and Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews were searched in May 2006 and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Research Register and ClinicalTrialsGov in April 2005.2. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED were searched in April 2005.3. Reference lists of included studies were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies exploring the effect of (dis)incentives on clinicians' views and recruitment-related activity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The information about included studies was insufficient for a full assessment of quality. Data on (dis)incentives were extracted and association with recruitment tested. MAIN

resultsNo RCTs of interventions were identified. Eleven observational studies were included - two medical records reviews, one matched pair study, one clinician interview study, two studies documenting clinicians' decisions and five postal surveys. Three measures of recruitment were used, invitation to participate, entry into RCT and reported entry to RCT. Five studies explored the effect of patient characteristics. The effect of age and prognosis varied between trials. Six studies considered the association between clinicians' views and recruitment. Clinicians who agreed to participate because they were acquainted with the researchers were less likely to participate than those otherwise motivated (1 study, 2-sided p = 0.04 Fisher's exact test) and (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.2 to 0.9, 1 study). Clinicians who had recruited were more likely to report some difficulties including "trials involve extra work" (OR 92.94, 95% CI 4.54 - 1902.11; p </= 0.01, 1 study) and "inviting patients to participate is embarrassing" (chi-square 15.55, df = 1, p < 0.0001, 1 study). The effect of the need to discuss clinical uncertainty was unclear but concern that the doctor-patient relationship would be adversely affected by participation was a deterrent (chi-square = 7.25, df = 1, p = 0.007, 1 study). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe impact of factors varied across studies. Researchers need to be aware that aspects of the design and conduct of trials can affect clinicians' willingness to invite patients to participate. Further research is needed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMotivationPatient SelectionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelSample Size

Identifiers

PMID17443636
PMCPMC7437389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.