Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31217024›Full record

Observational studyTrials2019

Recruitment of men to a multi-centre diabetes prevention trial: an evaluation of traditional and online promotional strategies.

Karen Bracken, Wendy Hague, Anthony Keech, Ann Conway, David J Handelsman, Mathis Grossmann, David Jesudason, Bronwyn Stuckey, Bu B Yeap, Warrick Inder and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Karen BrackenNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. karen.bracken@ctc.usyd.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6085-445X
Wendy HagueNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anthony KeechNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ann ConwayAnzac Research Institute, and Andrology Department, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
David J HandelsmanAnzac Research Institute, and Andrology Department, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mathis GrossmannDepartment of Medicine, the University of Melbourne, and Department of Endocrinology, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David JesudasonQueen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Bronwyn StuckeyDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Keogh Institute of Medical Research, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Bu B YeapDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Medical School, University of Western Australia and Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.
Warrick InderPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Carolyn AllanDepartment of Clinical Research, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Robert McLachlanDepartment of Clinical Research, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kristy P RobledoNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Gary WittertFreemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUConcord Repatriation General Hospital · AUHudson Institute of Medical Research · AUThe University of Western Australia · AUFreemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health · AUPrincess Alexandra Hospital · AUQueen Elizabeth Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Bayer HealthCare N/AEli Lilly (AU) N/ANational Health and Medical Research Council APP1030123University of Adelaide N/AUniversity of Sydney N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective interventions are required to prevent the current rapid increase in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes. Clinical trials of large-scale interventions to prevent Type 2 diabetes are essential but recruitment is challenging and expensive, and there are limited data regarding the most cost-effective and efficient approaches to recruitment. This paper aims to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of a range of promotional strategies used to recruit men to a large Type 2 diabetes prevention trial.

methodsAn observational study was conducted nested within the Testosterone for the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes (T4DM) study, a large, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of testosterone treatment for the prevention of Type 2 diabetes in men aged 50-74 years at high risk of developing diabetes. Study participation was promoted via mainstream media-television, newspaper and radio; direct marketing using mass mail-outs, publicly displayed posters and attendance at local events; digital platforms, including Facebook and Google; and online promotions by community organisations and businesses. For each strategy, the resulting number of participants and the direct cost involved were recorded. The staff effort required for each strategy was estimated based on feedback from staff.

resultsOf 19,022 men screened for the study, 1007 (5%) were enrolled. The most effective recruitment strategies were targeted radio advertising (accounting for 42% of participants), television news coverage (20%) and mass mail-outs (17%). Other strategies, including radio news, publicly displayed posters, attendance at local events, newspaper advertising, online promotions and Google and Facebook advertising, each accounted for no more than 4% of enrolled participants. Recruitment promotions cost an average of AU$594 per randomised participant. The most cost-effective paid strategy was mass mail-outs by a government health agency (AU$745 per participant). Other paid strategies were more expensive: mail-out by general practitioners (GPs) (AU$1104 per participant), radio advertising (AU$1081) and newspaper advertising (AU$1941).

conclusionRadio advertising, television news coverage and mass mail-outs by a government health agency were the most effective recruitment strategies. Close monitoring of recruitment outcomes and ongoing enhancement of recruitment activities played a central role in recruitment to this RCT.

trial registrationANZCTR, ID: ACTRN12612000287831 . Registered on 12 March 2012.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2InternetPatient SelectionTestosteroneAdvertisingAgedClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisDouble-Blind MethodHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostal ServiceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial MediaTestosteroneAdvertisingDiabetes preventionMen’s healthParticipant recruitmentRandomised controlled trialsRecruitment strategiesSocial media

Identifiers

PMID31217024
PMCPMC6585027
OpenAlexW2951601393

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.