ArticleBritish journal of pain2026
Supporting recruitment into complex trials: An embedded qualitative process evaluation in the RADICAL trial of radiofrequency denervation for chronic low back pain.
Article in British journal of pain, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: A qualitative process evaluation was embedded into the pilot phase of the RADICAL randomised controlled trial of radiofrequency denervation for chronic and moderate-severe low back pain. The aim was to rapidly understand recruitment processes and inform development of strategies to overcome recruitment challenges. Methods: Audio recording of recruitment consultations between recruiting staff and potential patient participants, and interviews with patients who had consented to participate in the RADICAL trial. We used rapid thematic analysis to identify what information was provided, understanding of trial processes and potential challenges to recruitment. Results: Recruitment staff needed more support to clearly and effectively explain trial participation. Specific challenges included communicating trial procedures, explaining treatment equipoise and randomisation, and navigating the complex recruitment pathway. These findings led to the development of support materials for recruiters, including a process diagram and targeted training sessions to optimise information provision and informed consent. Conclusion: Embedding qualitative process evaluations within an RCT pilot can generate rapid insights into communication challenges and recruitment barriers. These insights can inform the development of practical support materials and process refinements to enhance recruitment, potentially strengthening trial viability.
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.