Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32183250›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

"And Then He Got into the Wrong Group": A Qualitative Study Exploring the Effects of Randomization in Recruitment to a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Birthe Andrea Lehmann, Lara Lindert, Silke Ohlmeier, Lara Schlomann, Holger Pfaff, Kyung-Eun Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Birthe Andrea LehmannCommunication Science, University of Amsterdam, 1001 NH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lara LindertInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, 50933 Köln, Germany.
Silke OhlmeierInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, 50933 Köln, Germany.
Lara SchlomannInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, 50933 Köln, Germany.
Holger PfaffInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, 50933 Köln, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9154-6575
Kyung-Eun ChoiInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, 50933 Köln, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the most internally valid means of estimating the effectiveness of complex public health interventions, but the recruitment of participants can be difficult. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have affected the recruitment of employees with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) to a multicenter worksite health promotion program from the perspective of recruiting case managers.

methodsFactors in recruitment to the RCT were explored using three focus group discussions with case managers. Data were processed using MAXQDA and analyzed with a combination of content and sequence analysis.

resultsFindings showed that randomization is a major challenge for recruitment. Case managers adapted their communication with, and approaches to possible participants because of the randomization design and employed coping strategies to compensate for allocation into the control arm of the study. Perceptions of the superiority of the intervention group over the control group, perceptions of the (mis)match of participants to one of the groups, as well as the understanding of the necessity of randomization for effectiveness evaluations, further affected recruitment. Perceived expectations of possible participants and their (emotional) reactions to the randomization allocation also complicated recruitment.

conclusionWe were able to gain insight into the challenges of randomization for the recruitment of participants to a multicenter RCT. This study assisted the development of strategies to overcome barriers in the ongoing implementation process of the trial (i.e., the adaption of best practice information sheets and newsletters). There remains a need to develop effective interventions to help those recruiting to trials.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFocus GroupsHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicRandom Allocationcase managersqualitative researchrandomizationRCTrecruitment barriers

Identifiers

PMID32183250
PMCPMC7143713

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.