Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327177›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Adwoa Parker, Catherine Arundel, Laura Clark, Elizabeth Coleman, Laura Doherty, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, David Beard, Peter Bower, Cindy Cooper, Lucy Culliford and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. 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. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. "I'm tired of seeing my friends die": Barriers and facilitators to participating in clinical trials among rural people who use drugs in the United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    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.

Adwoa ParkerYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2880-3935
Catherine ArundelYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0512-4339
Laura ClarkYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9227-5447
Elizabeth ColemanYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4210-1865
Laura DohertyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5310-5808
Catherine Elizabeth HewittYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-3536
David BeardNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Science, NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7884-6389
Peter BowerNational Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9558-3349
Cindy CooperSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2995-5447
Lucy CullifordBristol Trials Centre, Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9255-6617
Declan DevaneSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9393-7075
Richard EmsleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1218-675X
Sandra EldridgeInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5638-2317
Sandra GalvinSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3923-2506
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresthill, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7890-2854
Alan MontgomeryUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University Park Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0450-1606
Christopher J SuttonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6406-1318
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresthill, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7239-7241
David J TorgersonYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1667-4275

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/R013748/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed ( Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyPandemicsCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomDATA ACCURACYEMBEDDED TRIALSEVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINEEVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE/STANDARDSHUMANSMETHODOLOGYPATIENT RETENTIONPATIENT SELECTIONPRACTICE GUIDELINESPRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC/STANDARDSRANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPICRANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALSRESEARCH DESIGNRESEARCH PARTICIPANTSRESEARCH PERSONNELRESEARCH SUBJECTSSAMPLE SIZESTUDY WITHIN A TRIAL (SWAT)

Identifiers

PMID38327177
PMCPMC11017159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.