Trial reportPloS one2025
Effects of a non-standard information leaflet on patient recruitment in acute care: Embedded cluster-randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruiting study participants is a key component and major challenge in clinical research. Evidence shows that the design of written study information can influence recruitment success. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness and acceptability of different written study information.
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of an information leaflet including an information video compared to a formal information letter in patient recruitment in acute care.
designWe conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial embedded in a cross-sectional study ("Sleep Acute host study") addressing patients' sleep in hospitals.
methodsIn a stratified random sample of hospitals, we allocated selected wards either to the intervention group (information leaflet including a link to an information video) or the control group (formal information letter) using external concealed randomisation. Adult patients hospitalised for at least 48 hours were eligible for participation. Our primary endpoint was recruitment success measured by the participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study. The secondary endpoint was acceptability of the written study information. Persons involved in the analyses were blinded concerning group allocation.
resultsIn total, 53 wards with 498 patients were cluster-randomised, 28 wards with 262 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 25 wards with 236 patients to the control group. The participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study was 51.1% (134 of 262) for the intervention and 47.5% (112 of 236) for the control group (OR 1.186 (0.698 to 2.013), p = 0.528). There were no significant differences concerning the acceptability of the written study information between both groups.
conclusionsMore patients who received an information leaflet including a link to an information video participated in the host study, although the difference is not statistically significant. STUDY REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID: DRKS00029707. Registered on 30. August 2022.
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.