ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
A study within a trial (SWAT) of clinical trial feasibility and barriers to recruitment in the United Kingdom - the CapaCiTY programme experience.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe CapaCiTY programme includes three, multi-centre, randomised controlled trials aiming to develop an evidence based adult chronic constipation treatment pathway. The trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, National Health Service, aiming to recruit 808 participants from 26 March 2015 to 31 January 2019. Sites were selected based on their responses to site feasibility questionnaires (2014-2015), a common tool employed by sponsors to assess a site's recruitment potential and ability to undertake the trial protocol. Failure to recruit the planned sample jeopardises reliability of results and wastes significant time and resources. The purpose of this study was to investigate barriers to recruitment in 2017.
methodsWe conducted site feasibility assessments with thirty-nine sites prior to trial commencement. Twenty-seven were selected to participate in the CapaCiTY programme, twelve were deemed unsuitable. We compared site contracted recruitment rates with actual recruitment rates and conducted a telephone survey and analysis from 5 July to 7 December 2017 (n = 24) to understand barriers to recruitment. Three sites declined to participate in the survey.
resultsAt the time of survey, 15% of sites in the CapaCiTY programme were meeting recruitment targets, 85% were recruiting half or less of their target. Of these, 28% recruited no participants. The main barriers to recruitment were lack of resources, high workloads, lack of suitable participants and study design not being compatible with routine care. Despite multiple strategies employed to overcome these barriers, the trials were eventually stopped due to futility, recruiting only 34% of the programme sample size.
conclusionsImproving the reliability of site feasibility assessments could potentially save a substantial amount in failed research investments and speed up the time to delivery of new treatments. We recommend 1) investment in training researchers in conducting and completing site feasibility; 2) funders to require pilot and feasibility data in grant applications, with an emphasis on patient and public involvement in trial design; 3) conducting site feasibility assessment at the pre-award stage; 4) development of a national database of sites' previous trial recruitment performance; 5) data-driven site level assessment of recruitment potential.
trial registrationISRCTN11791740; 16/07/2015, ISRCTN11093872; 11/11/2015, ISRCTN11747152; 30/09/2015.
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.