Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32245506›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study.

Amanda Blatch-Jones, Jacqueline Nuttall, Abby Bull, Louise Worswick, Mark Mullee, Robert Peveler, Stephen Falk, Neil Tape, Jeremy Hinks, Athene J Lane and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

12 authors.

Amanda Blatch-JonesNational Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Jacqueline NuttallSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Abby BullNational Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Louise WorswickNational Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Mark MulleeNIHR RDS (Research Design Service) South Central Level C (805), South Academic Block, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Robert PevelerNIHR Clinical Research Network Wessex, 7, Berrywood Business Village, Tollbar Way, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 2UN, UK.
Stephen FalkBristol Cancer Institute, Horfield Road, Bristol, BS2 8ED, UK.
Neil TapeSouthampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Jeremy HinksUniversity of Southampton, University Road, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Athene J LaneBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Jeremy C WyattWessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Gareth GriffithsSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. G.O.Griffiths@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful.

methodsA scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach.

resultsResponses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants.

conclusionsOur studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionClinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisEfficiency, OrganizationalHealth Care SurveysHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelResearch Support as TopicReview Literature as TopicSocial MediaSoftwareStakeholder ParticipationText MessagingClinical trials unitDigital toolParticipant recruitmentParticipant retentionQualitativeSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32245506
PMCPMC7118862

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.