ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2014
Does modification to the approach to contacting potential participants improve recruitment to clinical trials?
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluating the social fitness Programme for older people with cognitive problems and their caregivers: lessons learned from a failed trial.BMC geriatrics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is critical that clinical trial researchers ensure efficient and successful patient recruitment. Recruitment is often slower than expected and required sample sizes not obtained within initial funding deadlines. There is little rigorous evidence supporting ways to improve recruitment. We hypothesized making telephone contact with subjects prior to hospital attendance would improve recruitment rates into clinical trials.
methodsRetrospective post hoc analysis of recruitment rates in an on-going clinical trial was undertaken. Two hundred twelve consecutive patients were recruited over 6 months. During the first 3 months, patients received a telephone call from the research team and also received an information sheet by post prior to clinic attendance (group 1). The study was discussed on telephone and any issues were re-addressed at the patient's clinic appointment when they were formally invited to participate in the study. After 3 months, the investigators stopped telephoning the patients (group 2); patients were invited to participate in the study by post and were first spoken to directly by an investigator in clinic. The study protocol and investigators did not change between groups.
resultsThere was no significant difference in baseline demographics between the two groups. There was a significant improvement in recruitment rate in group 1 compared to group 2 (77.7% vs. 45.0%, P < 0.0001). An improvement in clinic attendance rate in group 1 was observed, although this was not significant (did not attend rate: 2.9% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.14).
conclusionTelephone contact between researchers and potential participants prior to clinic attendance can greatly improve study recruitment rates. This information may benefit the design of all clinical studies.
Indexed as
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.