Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29580260›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol.

Katie Gillies, Peter Bower, Jim Elliott, Graeme MacLennan, Rumana S N Newlands, Margaret Ogden, Shaun P Treweek, Mary Wells, Miles D Witham, Bridget Young and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Navigating Real-World Randomized Clinical Trials: The 'Parents as Teachers' Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

11 authors.

Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, 3rd Floor Health Sciences Building, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. k.gillies@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-2854
Peter BowerMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Jim ElliottHealth Services Research Unit, 3rd Floor Health Sciences Building, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Graeme MacLennanThe Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), 3rd Floor Health Sciences Building, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Rumana S N NewlandsHealth Services Research Unit, 2nd Floor Health Sciences Building, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Margaret OgdenHealth Services Research Unit, 3rd Floor Health Sciences Building, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Shaun P TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, 3rd Floor Health Sciences Building, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Mary WellsNMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Miles D WithamAgeing and Health, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Bridget YoungDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.
Jill J FrancisSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HIPS/16/46Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Medical Research Council MR/L01193X/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-retention of participants seriously affects the credibility of clinical trial results and significantly reduces the potential of a trial to influence clinical practice. Non-retention can be defined as instances where participants leave the study prematurely. Examples include withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up and thus outcome data cannot be obtained. The majority of existing interventions targeting retention fail to describe any theoretical basis for the observed improvement, or lack of improvement. Moreover, most of these interventions lack involvement of participants in their conception and/or design, raising questions about their relevance and acceptability. Many of the causes of non-retention involve people performing a behaviour (e.g. not returning a questionnaire). Behaviour change is difficult, and the importance of a strong theoretical basis for interventions that aim to change behaviour is increasingly recognised. This research aims to develop and pilot theoretically informed, participant-centred, evidence-based behaviour change interventions to improve retention in trials.

methodsThis research will generate data through semi-structured interviews on stakeholders' perspectives of the reasons for trial non-retention. It will identify perceived barriers and enablers to trial retention using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The intervention development work will involve identification of behaviour change techniques, using recognised methodology, and co-production of retention interventions through discussion groups with end-users. An evaluation of intervention acceptability and feasibility will be conducted in focus groups. Finally, a ready-to-use evaluation framework to deploy in Studies Within A Trial as well as an explanatory retention framework will be developed for identifying and tackling modifiable issues to improve trial retention. DISCUSSION: We believe this to be one of the first studies to apply a theoretical lens to the development of interventions to improve trial retention that have been informed by, and are embedded within, participants' experiential accounts. By developing and identifying priority interventions this study will support efforts to reduce research waste.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient DropoutsPatient SelectionAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsRisk FactorsStakeholder ParticipationDropoutInterventionInterviewsNon-retentionRetentionTheoryTrials

Identifiers

PMID29580260
PMCPMC5869766

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.