Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35253453›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2022

A dynamic and collaborative approach to trial recruitment in safetxt, a UK sexual health randomised controlled trial.

Lauren Jerome, Kimberley Potter, Ona McCarthy, Melissa Palmer, Megan Knight, Caroline Free

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Implementation ofJournal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  3. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren JeromeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6959-1529
Kimberley PotterLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ona McCarthyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Melissa PalmerLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Megan KnightLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Caroline FreeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsRecruiting to target in randomised controlled trials is crucial for providing reliable results, yet many trials struggle to achieve their target sample size. Many trials do not report sufficient, if any, details of their recruitment strategy for others to adapt for their own trials. Furthermore, much of the available evidence describes strategies to improve recruitment aimed at participants, as opposed to strategies aimed at engaging and motivating recruiting staff who are deemed essential for recruitment success. The safetxt trial aimed to recruit 6250 participants, aged 16-24 years, who had either tested positive, or received treatment, for chlamydia/gonorrhoea/non-specific urethritis in the last 2 weeks, from across the United Kingdom into a randomised controlled trial investigating a text message intervention to improve sexual health outcomes. In this article, we describe in detail the recruitment strategies we employed that were primarily aimed at recruiters.

methodsRecruitment began in April 2016. We built on our recruitment methods established in the pilot trial and developed several strategies to increase recruitment as the trial progressed including optimising site set-up, monitoring recruitment progress and identifying issues, facilitating shared learning, tailored recruitment materials, sustaining motivation, and communication. We describe these strategies in detail and provide practical examples for each.

resultsWe combine our strategies for increasing recruitment into one cyclical approach whereby progress is continuously monitored, and interventions to improve recruitment are implemented. The site initiation visits were used to develop a clear recruitment plan and establish good relationships with local site staff. Screening logs were particularly helpful for monitoring recruitment challenges. We facilitated shared learning by organising meetings with recruiting sites and conducting site visits. Tailored recruitment materials helped to promote the trial in clinic environments, and rewards and goals helped sustain motivation among recruiting staff. Finally, at the centre of the approach is good communication which ensured we maintained good relationships with local site staff.

conclusionWe conducted a large, multi-centre trial and successfully recruited to target. Our dynamic collaborative approach to recruitment described in this paper builds upon previous research by combining suggested good practice into one cyclical approach to recruitment, and providing detailed examples of each strategy. It is not possible to attribute a causal link between our approach and recruitment success overall, or with specific sites or recruiting staff. Nonetheless we describe the processes we used to build a good relationship with recruiting staff and sites, and maintain recruitment of large numbers of participants over the 32 months of the trial. Other researchers can use our approach and adapt our examples for their own trials.

Indexed as

Sexual HealthText MessagingHumansPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelSample Sizeapproachinterventionrandomised controlled trialrecruiterrecruiting staffRecruitmentsexual healthstrategy

Identifiers

PMID35253453
PMCPMC9203664
OpenAlexW4220946741

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.