ArticleBMJ open2012
Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 198 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
198 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Recruitment rates and strategies in exercise trials in cancer survivorship: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- The Effects of Forest Therapy on the Blood Pressure and Salivary Cortisol Levels of Urban Residents: A Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Role of adjuvant radiotherapy in atypical (WHO grade II) and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021Pooled it
- Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review.International wound journal · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials.Trials · 2015Pooled it
- Trial
- A community-based rehabilitation package following hip fracture: FEMuR III a multi-centre RCT, economic and process evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Stepping into day treatment approach versus inpatient treatment for adults with anorexia nervosa: the DAISIES RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Enhancing Recruitment Using Teleconference and Commitment Contract (ERUTECC): a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial within the EFFECTS trial.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2025Trial
- Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Feasibility of recruiting in prisons during a randomized controlled trial with people with serious mental illness.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Factors That Impact Hospital-Specific Enrollment Rates for a Neonatal Clinical Trial: An Analysis of the HEAL Study.Ethics & human research · 2023Trial
- Recruiting to surgical trials in the emergency setting: using a mixed methods study to understand clinician and patient perspectives.BJS open · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
138 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread problem. Provision of interventions aimed at supporting or incentivising clinicians may improve recruitment to RCTs. Objectives To quantify the effects of strategies aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in RCTs, complemented with a synthesis of qualitative evidence related to clinicians' attitudes towards recruiting to RCTs. Data sources A systematic review of English and non-English articles identified from: The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ebsco CINAHL, Index to Theses and Open SIGLE from 2001 to March 2011. Additional reports were identified through citation searches of included articles. Study eligibility criteria Quantitative studies were included if they evaluated interventions aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians or compared recruitment by different groups of clinicians. Information about host trial, study design, participants, interventions, outcomes and host RCT was extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using a standardised tool, the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Qualitative studies were included if they investigated clinicians' attitudes to recruiting patients to RCTs. All results/findings were extracted, and content analysis was carried out. Overarching themes were abstracted, followed by a metasummary analysis. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. Data extraction Data extraction was carried out by one researcher using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators, and verified by another. Results Eight quantitative studies were included describing four interventions and a comparison of recruiting clinicians. One study was rated as strong, one as moderate and the remaining six as weak when assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Effective interventions included the use of qualitative research to identify and overcome barriers to recruitment, reduction of the clinical workload associated with participation in RCTs and the provision of extra training and protected research time. Eleven qualitative studies were identified, and eight themes were abstracted from the data: understanding of research, communication, perceived patient barriers, patient-clinician relationship, effect on patients, effect on clinical practice, individual benefits for clinicians and methods associated with successful recruitment. Metasummary analysis identified the most frequently reported subthemes to be: difficulty communicating trial methods, poor understanding of research and priority given to patient well-being. Overall, the qualitative studies were found to be of good quality when assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Conclusions There were few high-quality trials that tested interventions to improve clinicians' recruitment activity in RCTs. The most promising intervention was the use of qualitative methods to identify and overcome barriers to clinician recruitment activity. More good quality studies of interventions are needed to add to the evidence base. The metasummary of qualitative findings identified understanding and communicating RCT methods as a key target for future interventions to improve recruitment. Reinforcement of the potential benefits, both for clinicians and for their patients, could also be a successful factor in improving recruitment. A bias was found towards investigating barriers to recruitment, so future work should also encompass a focus on successfully recruiting trials.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.