Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908117›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Recruiting to a large-scale physical activity randomised controlled trial - experiences with the gift of hindsight.

Robert J Copeland, Kimberley Horspool, Liam Humphreys, Emma Scott, Booster trial team

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT00836459 nacompletednot on this map

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.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRichard HudsonRan2009 to 2013Enrolled282ConditionsPublic HealthArmsMini Booster, Full Booster
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Research site mentoring: A novel approach to improving study recruitment.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018
    Article
  10. 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.

Robert J CopelandCentre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK. r.j.copeland@shu.ac.uk.
Kimberley HorspoolSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. k.horspool@sheffield.ac.uk.
Liam HumphreysCentre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK. l.humphreys@shu.ac.uk.
Emma ScottWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. e.j.scott@warwick.ac.uk.
Booster trial team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ExerciseHealth BehaviorLife StyleMotivational InterviewingPatient SelectionSample SizeAdultAdvertisingAgedCommunicationCorrespondence as TopicEnglandFemaleHumansLanguageMale

Identifiers

PMID26908117
PMCPMC4765210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.