Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34693794›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2022

Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2).

Anna Kearney, Polly-Anna Ashford, Laura Butlin, Thomas Conway, William J Cragg, Declan Devane, Heidi Gardner, Daisy M Gaunt, Katie Gillies, Nicola L Harman and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

19 authors.

Anna KearneyHealth Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1404-3370
Polly-Anna AshfordNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Laura ButlinCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2753-1883
Thomas ConwayHRB-Trials Methodology Research Network and Evidence Synthesis Ireland.
William J CraggClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1274-8521
Declan DevaneHRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, School of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Heidi GardnerHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2796-6898
Daisy M GauntPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1253-307X
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7890-2854
Nicola L HarmanHealth Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6958-6466
Andrew HunterSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Athene J LanePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7578-4925
Catherine McWilliamsHealth Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Louise MurphyNational University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Carrie O'NionsHealth Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Edward N StanhopeUniversity College Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2928-3393
Akke VellingaSchool of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-6583-4300
Paula R WilliamsonHealth Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3021-1955

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundAddressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research.

methodsSearches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context.

resultsOf the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%).

conclusionORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost-benefit analysis of retention strategies.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Reviews as Topicattritionclinical trialsliterature reviewParticipant retentiontrials methodology

Identifiers

PMID34693794
PMCPMC8847754

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.