Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695709›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Strategies to improve recruitment in mental health clinical trials: a scoping review (RE-MIND study).

Mais Iflaifel, Charlotte L Hall, Heidi R Green, Andrew Willis, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Edmund Juszczak, Mark Townsend, Jennifer Martin, Kirsty Sprange

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Refining the NEED (Needs Examination, Evaluation and Dissemination) Methods for Use in Psychotic Disorders in Belgium: Lessons From the Design Phase.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Mais IflaifelNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Charlotte L HallNIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, UK.
Heidi R GreenHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Andrew WillisCentre for Ethnic Health Research, Leicester/Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Stefan Rennick-EgglestoneSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Edmund JuszczakNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mark TownsendNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), Southampton, UK.
Jennifer MartinNIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, UK.
Kirsty SprangeNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. kirsty.sprange@nottingham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLower-than-expected recruitment continues to be one of the major causes of trial delays, and trials to improve mental health are no exception. Indeed, recruitment challenges in trials of vulnerable populations, such as those living with mental health illness, can even be exacerbated. To address this, researchers are turning to digital and online recruitment strategies, e.g. web-based approaches and multi-media in order to (1) increase recruitment efficiency (recruit to target and on time) and (2) improve diversity in mental health clinical trials to be more inclusive and reduce health inequity. There is, however, inconclusive evidence on the success of digital and online recruitment strategies in mental health clinical trials. The RE-MIND study comprised a scoping review to assess the impact of using such recruitment strategies in mental health clinical trials to inform a more systematic scoping review.

methodsA cohort of 191 recently published RCTs and randomised feasibility studies were identified from the NIHR Journals Library and top two mental health journals (based on citation metrics), Lancet Psychiatry and JAMA Psychiatry. Population characteristics including gender, ethnicity and age were summarised for inclusivity using descriptive statistics, and recruitment strategies were compared to examine differences in their success in recruiting to target.

resultsAfter screening, 97 articles were included for review. The review findings showed no evidence that offline or mixed strategies were superior for achieving recruitment targets in mental health trials. However, there was a suggestion that trials using a mixed recruitment strategy improved inclusivity and tended to recruit closer to the target.

conclusionsThe key finding was that consideration should be given to a mixed methods approach to recruitment not only to enable wider and more diverse participation in mental health trials but also to realize greater efficiency.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansDiversityEvidence reviewInclusivityMental healthRandomised controlled trialsRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID39695709
PMCPMC11654402

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.