Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27931252›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial.

Adwoa Hughes-Morley, Mark Hann, Claire Fraser, Oonagh Meade, Karina Lovell, Bridget Young, Chris Roberts, Lindsey Cree, Donna More, Neil O'Leary and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized 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. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 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. Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring the impact of engagement in mental health and substance use research: A scoping review and thematic analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

13 authors.

Adwoa Hughes-MorleyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. adwoa.hughes-morley@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2880-3935
Mark HannDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Claire FraserDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Oonagh MeadeSchool of Health Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
Karina LovellDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Bridget YoungMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Chris RobertsDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Lindsey CreeDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Donna MoreDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Neil O'LearyHRB Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Patrick CallaghanSchool of Health Sciences and Institute of Mental Health, The University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK.
Waquas WaheedDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Peter BowerMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2012-05-128Department of Health RP-PG-1210-12007Medical Research Council G1002325Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants.

methodsThis is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial ('EQUIP') recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation.

resultsThirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes.

conclusionTo our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358 . Registered on 14 May 2014. Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26 . Registered on 21 January 2016.

Indexed as

PamphletsPatient Care PlanningPatient SelectionPublic OpinionAdultCommunicationCommunity Mental Health ServicesDirect-to-Consumer AdvertisingEnglandFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLinear ModelsLogistic ModelsMaleMarketing of Health ServicesMesh: embedded trialPatient and public involvementRandomised controlled trialRecruitmentResearch methodologyService user involvementStudy within a trial

Identifiers

PMID27931252
PMCPMC5146878

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.