Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32085717›Full record

SynthesisTrials2020

Assessing effective interventions to improve trial retention: do they contain behaviour change techniques?

Eilidh M Duncan, Tina Bennett, Katie Gillies

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effect of pharmacist care on clinical outcomes and therapy optimization in perioperative settings: A systematic review.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Use of advance letters to enhance participant retention in a clinical trial.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

3 authors.

Eilidh M DuncanHealth Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. e.duncan@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1009-9732
Tina BennettHealth Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HIPS/16/46Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Chief Scientist Office n/aMedical Research Council MR/L01193X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials often struggle to retain the number of participants required to make valid and reliable assessments about the effectiveness of treatments. Several individual randomised comparisons of interventions to improve retention in trials have been shown to be effective. Many of these retention interventions target participants' behaviour (e.g. returning questionnaires or attending a follow-up visit). Although not designed as such, these interventions can be thought of as behaviour change interventions. By coding the constituent behaviour change components of effective retention interventions, the interventions' potential 'active ingredients' responsible for improvements in retention can be identified and maximised for future gains.

methodsStudies reporting effective retention interventions were identified from existing meta-analyses in the literature. Published manuscripts and intervention and comparator group material were coded into their behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using the BCT taxonomy version 1. Two authors independently coded materials using a standardised coding manual and discussed any disagreements to reach consensus. Data on study characteristics including host trial context, timing, mode of delivery and dosage of retention intervention were recorded.

resultsTwo intervention types were identified as having evidence of improving retention in existing meta-analyses: monetary incentives and electronic prompts. None of the interventions identified from the included studies explicitly stated a theoretical rationale for their development. BCTs were identified in both intervention and comparator groups across both intervention types and there was heterogeneity with regard to their presentation within and across interventions. The BCTs identified in the 'monetary incentive' interventions differed to the comparator group. Contrastingly, the BCTs identified in 'electronic prompts' interventions were identical in both the control and intervention groups (within studies) and differed only in terms of mode of delivery and dosing.

conclusionsAttending a measurement visit or returning a questionnaire is a behaviour and trialists should be mindful of this when designing retention interventions. Our work in this area provides some of the first evidence of the impact of implicit use of BCTs in retention interventions and highlights their potential promise for future trials.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyBehavior TherapyClassificationHumansPatient ParticipationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBehaviour change techniquesClinical trialsInterventionsParticipant retentionTheory

Identifiers

PMID32085717
PMCPMC7035706

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.