Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31666093›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Identifying important barriers to recruitment of patients in randomised clinical studies using a questionnaire for study personnel.

Eva Isaksson, Per Wester, Ann Charlotte Laska, Per Näsman, Erik Lundström

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT02683213 phase3completednot on this map

Establishing the Effect(s) and Safety of Fluoxetine Initiated in the Acute Phase of Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2014 to 2020Enrolled1,500ConditionsStrokeArmsFluoxetine, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Eva IsakssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurology, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden. eva.isaksson@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0289-8750
Per WesterDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, SE-18288, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ann Charlotte LaskaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, SE-18288, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per NäsmanCenter for Safety Research, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik LundströmDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurology, Uppsala University, SE-751 85, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesQuestionnaireRandomised controlled trialsRCTRecruitmentSurvey

Identifiers

PMID31666093
PMCPMC6822437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.