Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36869362›Full record

Trial reportTrials2023

Site-specific factors associated with clinical trial recruitment efficiency in general practice settings: a comparative descriptive analysis.

Michelle Tew, Max Catchpool, John Furler, Katie De La Rue, Philip Clarke, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Kim Dalziel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

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

7 authors.

Michelle TewCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. michelle.tew@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3009-8056
Max CatchpoolCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
John FurlerDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Katie De La RueDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Philip ClarkeCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis *Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kim Dalziel *Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia APP1104241
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment of participants is crucial to the success of randomised control trials (RCTs) but can be challenging and expensive. Current research on trial efficiency is often focused at the patient-level with an emphasis on effective recruitment strategies. Less is known about selection of study sites to optimise recruitment. We examine site-level factors that are associated with patient recruitment and cost efficiency using data from an RCT conducted across 25 general practices (GP) in Victoria, Australia.

methodsData on number of participants screened, excluded, eligible, recruited, and randomised from each study site were extracted from a clinical trial. Details regarding site characteristics, recruitment practices, and staff time commitment were collected using a three-part survey. The key outcomes assessed were recruitment efficiency (ratio of screened to randomised), average time, and cost for each participant recruited and randomised. To identify practice-level factors associated with efficient recruitment and lower cost, outcomes were dichotomised (25th percentile vs others) and each practice-level factor assessed against the outcomes to determine its association.

resultsAcross 25 GP study sites, 1968 participants were screened of which 299 (15.2%) were recruited and randomised. The mean recruitment efficiency was 7.2, varying from 1.4 to 19.8 across sites. The strongest factor associated with efficiency was assigning clinical staff to identify potential participants (57.14% vs. 22.2%). The more efficient sites were smaller practices and were more likely to be rural locations and in areas of lower socioeconomic status. The average time used for recruitment was 3.7 h (SD2.4) per patient randomised. The mean cost per patient randomised was $277 (SD161), and this varied from $74 to $797 across sites. The sites identified with the 25% lowest recruitment cost (n = 7) were more experienced in research participation and had high levels of nurse and/or administrative support.

conclusionDespite the small sample size, this study quantified the time and cost used to recruit patients and provides helpful indications of site-level characteristics that can help improve feasibility and efficiency of conducting RCT in GP settings. Characteristics indicative of high levels of support for research and rural practices, which often tends to be overlooked, were observed to be more efficient in recruiting.

Indexed as

General PracticeHumansPatient SelectionSample SizeSocial ClassVictoriaClinical trialCostDiabetesGeneral practiceRecruitment efficiency

Identifiers

PMID36869362
PMCPMC9985191

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.