ArticleTrials2019
Identifying important barriers to recruitment of patients in randomised clinical studies using a questionnaire for study personnel.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02683213 (Establishing the Effect), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Establishing the Effect(s) and Safety of Fluoxetine Initiated in the Acute Phase of Stroke
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Enhancing Recruitment Using Teleconference and Commitment Contract (ERUTECC): a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial within the EFFECTS trial.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Yoga Program for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention (YOGA-DP) Among High-Risk People: Qualitative Study to Explore Reasons for Non-participation in a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial in India.Frontiers in public health · 2021Trial
- Barriers and Facilitators to Intracerebral Haemorrhage Platform Trial Recruitment: A Survey of Stroke Clinicians.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Taxonomy of chronic illness research recruitment: a restricted scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Increasing clinical recruitment rate to a single-site observational study: a quality improvement study.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Optimizing Recruitment and Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials in Low-Resource Settings: Barriers and Facilitators From Nigerian Provider's Perspectives.JCO global oncology · 2025Article
- Feasibility, Fidelity and Acceptability of a Person-Centred Care Transition Support Intervention for Stroke Survivors: A Non-Randomised Controlled Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI).Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Intervention for a correct medication list and medication use in older adults: a non-randomised feasibility study among inpatients and residents during care transitions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Recruiting general practitioners and older patients with multimorbidity to randomized trials.Family practice · 2023Article
- Maternal mental health research in Malawi: Community and healthcare provider perspectives on acceptability and ethicality.SSM. Mental health · 2023Article
- Recruitment of pre-dementia participants: main enrollment barriers in a longitudinal amyloid-PET study.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2023Observational
- Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the health-related quality of life of frontline workers: the case of seven low-income Eastern African countries.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- A dynamic and collaborative approach to trial recruitment in safetxt, a UK sexual health randomised controlled trial.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Factors Underlying Patient and Surgeon Willingness to Participate in a Placebo Surgery Controlled trial: A Qualitative Investigation.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021Article
- Recruitment of adults with moderate eczema for a randomised trial: Comparison of traditional versus modern methods.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany randomised controlled trials (RCT) fail to meet their recruitment goals. Study personnel play a key role in recruitment. The aim of this study was to identify successful strategies that study personnel consider to be important in patient recruitment to RCT.
methodsWe constructed a questionnaire based on the literature, discussions with colleagues and our own experience as trialists. The survey was named "What is Important for Making a Study Successful questionnaire" (WIMSS-q). Our target group was the study personnel in the ongoing EFFECTS study. The questionnaire was sent out electronically to all physicians and nurses (n = 148). Success factors and barriers were divided according to patient, centre and study level, respectively.
resultsResponses were received from 94% of the study personnel (139/148). The five most important factors at centre level for enhancing recruitment were that the research question was important (97%), a simple procedure for providing information and gaining consent (92%), a highly engaged local principal investigator and research nurse (both 87%), and that study-related follow-ups are practically feasible and possible to coordinate with the clinical follow-up (87%). The most significant barrier at the local centre was lack of time and resources devoted to research (72%). Important patient-related barriers were fear of side effects (35%) and language problems (30%).
conclusionsFor recruitment in an RCT to be successful, the research question must be relevant, and the protocol must be simple and easy to implement in the daily routine.
trial registrationThe protocol for this study was registered at the Northern Ireland Hub for trials methodology research (SWAT ID 64 ). The EFFECTS study has EudraCT number 2011-006130-16 and was registered 17 February 2016 at ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02683213 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.