Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33436031›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Maximising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial for chronic rhinosinusitis using qualitative research methods: the MACRO conversation study.

Clare McDermott, Jane Vennik, Carl Philpott, Steffi le Conte, Mike Thomas, Caroline Eyles, Paul Little, Helen Blackshaw, Anne Schilder, Claire Hopkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Clare McDermottPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jane VennikPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. j.vennik@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4602-9805
Carl PhilpottNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Steffi le ConteSurgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mike ThomasPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Caroline EylesPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Helen BlackshawevidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Anne SchilderevidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Claire HopkinsGuy's and St. Thomas, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-045Department of Health RP-PG-0614-20011Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0614-20011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the 'gold standard' of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial.

methodsSetting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial.

resultsRecruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns.

conclusionThe MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionSinusitisCommunicationHumansQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelChronic rhinosinusitisQualitative researchRandomised controlled trialRecruitmentThematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID33436031
PMCPMC7805190

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.