Trial reportTrials2016
Recruiting to a large-scale physical activity randomised controlled trial - experiences with the gift of hindsight.
Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00836459 (A Randomised Controlled Trial and Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of "Booster" Interventions to Sustain Increases in Physical Activity in Middle-aged Adults in Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods.), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
A Randomised Controlled Trial and Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of "Booster" Interventions to Sustain Increases in Physical Activity in Middle-aged Adults in Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials of men aged 50 years and older: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Strategies for recruitment in general practice settings: the iSOLVE fall prevention pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Trial
- Guideline implementation in the Canadian chiropractic setting: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial and parallel study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Trial
- Interpreting population reach of a large, successful physical activity trial delivered through primary care.BMC public health · 2018Trial
- Preference-based versus randomized controlled trial in prostate cancer survivors: Comparison of recruitment, adherence, attrition, and clinical outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Innovation in the design of large-scale hybrid randomized clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2020Article
- CAPS on the move: Crafting an approach to recruitment for a randomized controlled trial of community gardening.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- BRInging the Diabetes prevention program to GEriatric populations (BRIDGE): a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Research site mentoring: A novel approach to improving study recruitment.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- Article
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
backgroundRecruitment issues continue to impact a large number of trials. Sharing recruitment information is vital to supporting researchers to accurately predict recruitment and to manage the risk of poor recruitment during study design and implementation. The purpose of this article is to build on the knowledge available to researchers on recruiting to community-based trials.
methodsA critical commentary of the recruitment challenges encountered during the Booster Study, a randomised controlled trial in which researchers investigated the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing style intervention on the maintenance of physical activity. An overview of recruitment is provided, as well as strategies employed to recruit prospective participants and possible barriers to recruitment.
resultsTwo hundred eighty-two people, 47 % of the original target, were recruited through mail-outs, with secondary recruitment pathways yielding no additional participants. The research team encountered problems with recontacting interested participants and providing study materials in non-English languages. A lower response rate to the mail-out and a greater number of non-contactable participants in the full study than in the pilot study resulted in a smaller pool of eligible participants from the brief intervention eligible for recruitment into the randomised controlled trial.
conclusionsDespite using widely accepted recruitment strategies and incorporating new recruitment tactics in response to challenges, the Booster Study investigators failed to randomise a sufficient number of participants. Recruitment in trials of community-based behavioural interventions may have different challenges than trials based on clinical or primary care pathways. Specific challenges posed by the complexity of the study design and problems with staffing and resources were exacerbated by the need to revise upwards the number of mailed invitations as a result of the pilot study. Researchers should ensure study design facilitates recruitment and consider the implications of changing recruitment on the operational aspects of the trial. Where possible, the impact of new strategies should be measured, and recruitment successes and challenges should be shared with those planning similar studies. ISRCTN56495859 (registered on 12 February 2009); NCT00836459 (registered on 3 February 2009).
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.