Trial reportTrials2026
A randomised Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to determine if participant information leaflet design affects recruitment rate into an interventional trial taking place in a UK emergency department.
Trial report in Trials, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundExploring barriers and enablers to participant recruitment into trials is a common discussion point in trial methodology. Participant information leaflets (PIL) can be long, have complexity above the average UK reading age, and may discourage engagement with research. This Study Within a Trial (SWAT) explored whether changing the design of a PIL influences recruitment rate and its value in patient decision-making. It was conducted within a host trial taking place in an emergency setting, where time is at a premium, and decisions on trial participation are needed more quickly than in most non-emergency settings.
methodsWe have conducted a randomised SWAT, comparing the standard format PIL with one that has been adapted to be visually appealing, with improved readability and reduced word count. Patients considered eligible for the host trial were provided with a randomly allocated PIL type; consent rates were compared. Those consenting to take part in the host trial were asked to complete a questionnaire to explore the value of the PIL in their decision-making to take part in the trial; responses were compared across the two information sheets. The sample size was dictated by host trial recruitment.
resultsBetween September 2019 and September 2022, with a brief pause during the COVID19 pandemic, 271 participants were randomised to receive either the optimised PIL (n = 138) or the conventional PIL (n = 133). The recruitment rates were 47.1% (65/138) in the optimised PIL group and 48.9% (65/133) in the conventional PIL group; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.771). There were no significant differences in responses from participants recruited to the host trial who completed the Decision-Making Questionnaire.
conclusionImproving the readability and visual presentation of the participant information sheet provided to participants had no effect on recruitment rate, and did not appear to impact decision-making of recruited participants.
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.