Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26187378›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Improving recruitment to a study of telehealth management for long-term conditions in primary care: two embedded, randomised controlled trials of optimised patient information materials.

Mei-See Man, Healthlines Study Group, Jo Rick, Peter Bower, MRC-START Group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Mei-See ManSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Mei-see.man@bristol.ac.uk.
Healthlines Study Group
Jo RickNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Centre for Primary Care, the University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Jo.rick@manchester.ac.uk.
Peter BowerMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. peter.bower@manchester.ac.uk.
MRC-START Group

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2012-05-128Medical Research Council G1002325Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient understanding of study information is fundamental to gaining informed consent to take part in a randomised controlled trial. In order to meet the requirements of research ethics committees, patient information materials can be long and need to communicate complex messages. There is concern that standard approaches to providing patient information may deter potential participants from taking part in trials. The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC-START) research programme aims to test interventions to improve trial recruitment. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on recruitment of optimised patient information materials (with improved readability and ease of comprehension) compared with standard materials. The study was embedded within two primary care trials involving patients with long-term conditions.

methodsThe Healthlines Study involves two linked trials evaluating a telehealth intervention in patients with depression (Healthlines Depression) or raised cardiovascular disease risk (Healthlines CVD). We conducted two trials of a recruitment intervention, embedded within the Healthlines host trials. Patients identified as potentially eligible in each of the Healthlines trials were randomised to receive either the original patient information materials or optimised versions of these materials. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants randomised (Healthlines Depression) and the proportion expressing interest in taking part (Healthlines CVD).

resultsIn Healthlines Depression (n = 1364), 6.3% of patients receiving the optimised patient information materials were randomised into the study compared to 4.0% in those receiving standard materials (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.67). In Healthlines CVD (n = 671) 24.0% of those receiving optimised patient information materials responded positively to the invitation to participate, compared to 21.9% in those receiving standard materials (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.61).

conclusionsEvidence from these two embedded trials suggests limited benefits of optimised patient information materials on recruitment rates, which may only be apparent in some patient populations, with no effects on other outcomes. Further embedded trials are needed to provide a more precise estimate of effect, and to explore further how effects vary by trial context, intervention, and patient population.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: Healthlines Depression (ISRCTN27508731) on 26 June 2012; and Healthlines CVD (ISRCTN14172341) on 5 July 2012.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Education as TopicPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesComprehensionDepressionFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedPamphletsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26187378
PMCPMC4506607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.