Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31706324›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design.

Beth Parkinson, Rachel Meacock, Matt Sutton, Eleonora Fichera, Nicola Mills, Gillian W Shorter, Shaun Treweek, Nicola L Harman, Rebecca C H Brown, Katie Gillies and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
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. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Improving Diversity in Recruitment: Lessons Learned During the REACH Pregnancy Circles Pilot Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  8. Effects of an Increased Financial Incentive on Follow-up in an Online, Automated Smoking Cessation Trial: A randomized Controlled Study Within a Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Beth ParkinsonHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rachel MeacockHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matt SuttonHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Eleonora FicheraDepartment of Economics, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Nicola MillsMRC ConDuCT-II Hub, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gillian W ShorterInstitute of Mental Health Sciences, School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Nicola L HarmanMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Rebecca C H BrownFaculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Peter BowerMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. peter.bower@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9558-3349

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Medical Research Council G0800792Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to 'map' the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future.

methodsThe scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives.

resultsThe issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base.

conclusionsOur findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters.

Indexed as

ChecklistClinical Trials as TopicMotivationPatient SelectionResearch DesignHumansIncentivesRecruitmentRetentionTrials

Identifiers

PMID31706324
PMCPMC6842495

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.