Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27965794›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2015

Experiences of recruiting to a pilot trial of Cardiac Rehabilitation In patients with Bowel cancer (CRIB) with an embedded process evaluation: lessons learned to improve recruitment.

Gill Hubbard, Anna Campbell, Zoe Davies, Julie Munro, Aileen V Ireland, Stephen Leslie, Angus Jm Watson, Shaun Treweek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Gill HubbardCancer Care Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Highland Campus, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH UK.
Anna CampbellFaculty of Life Science, Sport and Social Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh, EH11 4BN UK.
Zoe DaviesCancer Trials Unit, Tower Block 2, Room 20, UHW, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XW UK.
Julie MunroCancer Care Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Highland Campus, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH UK.
Aileen V IrelandCancer Care Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
Stephen LeslieCardiac Unit, Raigmore Hospital, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3UJ UK.
Angus Jm WatsonNHS Highland, Inverness, IV2 3BW UK ; Colorectal Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3UJ UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK.
University of Stirling · GBEdinburgh Napier University · GBNHS Highland · GBRaigmore Hospital · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Department of Health 12/5001/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a perennial problem. Calls have been made for trialists to make recruitment performance publicly available. This article presents our experience of recruiting to a pilot RCT of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with bowel cancer with an embedded process evaluation.

methodsRecruitment took place at three UK hospitals. Recruitment figures were based on the following: i) estimated number of patient admissions, ii) number of patients likely to meet inclusion criteria from clinician input and iii) recruitment rates in previous studies. The following recruitment procedure was used:Nurse assessed patients for eligibility.Patients signed a screening form indicating interest in and agreement to be approached by a researcher about the study.An appointment was made at which the patient signed a consent form and was randomised to the intervention or control group. Information about all patients considered for the study and subsequently included or excluded at each stage of the recruitment process and reasons given were recorded.

resultsThere were variations in the time taken to award Research Management approval to run the study at the three sites (45-359 days). Sixty-two percent of the original recruitment estimate was reached. The main reason for under-recruitment was due to over-estimation of the number of patient admissions; other reasons were i) not assessing all patients for eligibility, ii) not completing a screening form for eligible patients and iii) patients who signed a screening form being lost to the study before consenting and randomisation.

conclusionsPilot trials should not simply aim to improve recruitment estimates but should also identify factors likely to influence recruitment performance in a future trial and inform the development of that trial's recruitment strategies. Pilot trials are a crucial part of RCT design. Nevertheless, pilot trials are likely to be small scale, involving only a small number of sites, and contextual differences between sites are likely to impact recruitment performance in any future trial. This means that ongoing monitoring and evaluation in trials are likely to be required.

trial registrationISRCTN63510637; UKCRN id 14092.

Indexed as

Cancer survivorshipColorectal cancerComplex interventionPilot trialPragmatic interventionRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID27965794
PMCPMC5154094
OpenAlexW2160698575

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.