Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42732184›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2026

Exploring trial acceptability, recruitment, and retention in a pilot optimisation randomised controlled trial of a behavioural intervention to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer: A qualitative process evaluation.

Jennifer F Ingram, Elizabeth Travis, Louise H Hall, Erin Raine, Rachel Ellison, Emma McNaught, Hollie Wilkes, Pei Loo Ow, Christopher D Graham, David P French and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

21 authors.

Jennifer F IngramLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Elizabeth TravisLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Louise H HallLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Erin RaineLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Rachel EllisonYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9251-492X
Emma McNaughtClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Hollie WilkesClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Pei Loo OwClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Christopher D GrahamDepartment of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, G1 1QE, UK.
David P FrenchDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7663-7804
Daniel HowdonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8052-2893
Jane ClarkDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England, LS9 7TF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1882-666X
Jo WallerWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, E13 8SP, UK.
Jacqueline BuxtonIndependent, Leeds, UK.
Sally J L MooreIndependent, Leeds, UK.
Catherine ParbuttMedicines Management and Pharmacy Services, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England, LS9 7TF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4047-0345
Galina VelikovaLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England, LS9 7TF, UK.
Amanda J FarrinClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Michelle CollinsonClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Samuel G Smith *Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.
Sophie M C Green *Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, LS2 9NL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2622-5377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Complex factorial trials are increasingly employed to optimise complex behavioural interventions. However, acceptability of such designs to participants are unknown. In this qualitative process evaluation of a pilot optimisation randomised controlled trial (O-RCT) for a behavioural intervention to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer, we explored acceptability of trial participation, alongside barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Methods: We conducted a 2 Results: Generally, participation in the trial was perceived positively ( Conclusions: This qualitative process evaluation suggests participation in an O-RCT was acceptable. Low randomisation coherence and questionnaire burden are notable areas for improvement. Future studies within trials should explore approaches to explaining factorial trials to participants. Barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention were similar to parallel group randomised trials, suggesting interventions addressing these may be applicable regardless of trial design.

Indexed as

acceptabilityfactorial trialoptimisation trialrecruitmentretentiontrial experience

Identifiers

PMID42732184
PMCPMC13562956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.