Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38576071›Full record

ReviewClinical trials (London, England)2024

The overlap between randomised evaluations of recruitment and retention interventions: An updated review of recruitment (Online Resource for Recruitment in Clinical triAls) and retention (Online Resource for Retention in Clinical triAls) literature.

Anna Kearney, Laura Butlin, Taylor Coffey, Thomas Conway, Sarah Cotterill, Alison Evans, Jackie Fox, Andrew Hunter, Sarah Inglis, Louise Murphy and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical trials (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

13 authors.

Anna KearneyDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1404-3370
Laura ButlinCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2753-1883
Taylor CoffeyHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Thomas ConwayHRB-TMRN, Trial Methodology and Evidence Synthesis, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Sarah CotterillCentre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alison EvansCardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Jackie FoxMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew HunterSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Sarah InglisTayside Clinical Trials Unit (TCTU), University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Louise MurphyHealth Research Institute, Department of Nursing Studies & Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Nurulamin M NoorMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Terrie Walker-SmithBristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3021-1955

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Online Resource for Recruitment in Clinical triAls (ORRCA) and the Online Resource for Retention in Clinical triAls (ORRCA2) were established to organise and map the literature addressing participant recruitment and retention within clinical research. The two databases are updated on an ongoing basis using separate but parallel systematic reviews. However, recruitment and retention of research participants is widely acknowledged to be interconnected. While interventions aimed at addressing recruitment challenges can impact retention and vice versa, it is not clear how well they are simultaneously considered within methodological research. This study aims to report the recent update of ORRCA and ORRCA2 with a special emphasis on assessing crossover of the databases and how frequently randomised studies of methodological interventions measure the impact on both recruitment and retention outcomes.

methodsTwo parallel systematic reviews were conducted in line with previously reported methods updating ORRCA (recruitment) and ORRCA2 (retention) with publications from 2018 and 2019. Articles were categorised according to their evidence type (randomised evaluation, non-randomised evaluation, application and observation) and against the recruitment and retention domain frameworks. Articles categorised as randomised evaluations were compared to identify studies appearing in both databases. For randomised studies that were only in one database, domain categories were used to assess whether the methodological intervention was likely to impact on the alternate construct. For example, whether a recruitment intervention might also impact retention.

resultsIn total, 806 of 17,767 articles screened for the recruitment database and 175 of 18,656 articles screened for the retention database were added as result of the update. Of these, 89 articles were classified as 'randomised evaluation', of which 6 were systematic reviews and 83 were randomised evaluations of methodological interventions. Ten of the randomised studies assessed recruitment and retention and were included in both databases. Of the randomised studies only in the recruitment database, 48/55 (87%) assessed the content or format of participant information which could have an impact on retention. Of the randomised studies only in the retention database, 6/18 (33%) assessed monetary incentives, 4/18 (22%) assessed data collection location and methods and 3/18 (17%) assessed non-monetary incentives, all of which could have an impact on recruitment.

conclusionOnly a small proportion of randomised studies of methodological interventions assessed the impact on both recruitment and retention despite having a potential impact on both outcomes. Where possible, an integrated approach analysing both constructs should be the new standard for these types of evaluations to ensure that improvements to recruitment are not at the expense of retention and vice versa.

Indexed as

Patient DropoutsPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualHumansResearch Designmethodological researchRecruitmentretentionSWAT

Identifiers

PMID38576071
PMCPMC11528860

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.