ArticleHRB open research2023
A qualitative exploration of advantages and disadvantages to using technology in the process of randomised controlled trial recruitment.
Article in HRB open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How have contemporary research studies used social media to recruit to digital self-help intervention research for young people's mental health?: a mapping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Improving the User Interface and Guiding the Development of Effective Training Material for a Clinical Research Recruitment and Retention Dashboard: Usability Testing Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- A study within a trial (SWAT) of clinical trial feasibility and barriers to recruitment in the United Kingdom - the CapaCiTY programme experience.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- A qualitative exploration of advantages and disadvantages to using technology in the process of randomised controlled trial recruitment.HRB open research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite its importance, recruiting a sufficient sample size for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can pose a significant challenge, which has real-world impact on reliability of evidence, trial completion and ultimately, patient care. Technology has potential to enhance the recruitment process, but there is a lack of evidence regarding its current use and effectiveness. Consistent with findings from the PRioRiTy I study, the current research aims to explore the advantages and disadvantages to using technology during the recruitment process for RCTs. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n=7) were conducted with researchers involved in RCT recruitment in Ireland. Subsequently, a Public & Patient Involvement (PPI) panel focus group (n=3) was conducted to add further depth to these findings. The data were qualitatively analysed through 'Reflexive Thematic Analysis' to extract prominent themes. Results: A superordinate theme arose: Conclusions: This study provided a deeper understanding of the factors which influence researchers to employ technology in recruitment for RCTs. Implications suggest that future researchers should aim to adapt their recruitment approaches to meet digital tool preferences of their target cohort; and engage with patient groups in the community to allow networking opportunities for future studies. This research may contribute towards maximising efficiency in RCT recruitment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.