Dataset Information

Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To undertake a meta-ethnographic synthesis of findings from primary studies reporting qualitative data that have explored participant-reported factors influencing non-retention within a clinical trial context. DESIGN:A systematic search and meta-ethnography was conducted for published papers (from 1946 to July 2018) that contained qualitative data from trial non-retainers. PARTICIPANTS:We identified 11 studies reporting qualitative data from 13 trials. The studies were undertaken between 2008 and 2018. Each study included between 3 and 40 people who had dropped out from a trial, with findings from 168 people in total reported across the papers. RESULTS:Emergent from our synthesis was the significance of trial non-retainers' perceptions around the personal 'fit' of key aspects of the trial with their personal beliefs, preferences, capabilities or life circumstances. These related to their own health state; preferences for receiving trial 'care'; individual capabilities; beliefs about or experiences of trial medication and considerations whether trial participation could be accommodated into their broader lives. All these factors raise important issues around the extent to which initial decisions to participate were fully informed. CONCLUSIONS:To improve retention in clinical trials, researchers should work to reduce the burden on trial participants both through the design of the intervention itself as well as through simplified data collection processes. Providing more detail on the nature of the trial interventions and what can be expected by 'participation' at the consenting stage may prove helpful in order to manage expectations.

SUBMITTER: Skea ZC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6561611 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out.

Skea Zoë C ZC Newlands Rumana R Gillies Katie K

BMJ open 20190603 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To undertake a meta-ethnographic synthesis of findings from primary studies reporting qualitative data that have explored participant-reported factors influencing non-retention within a clinical trial context.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic search and meta-ethnography was conducted for published papers (from 1946 to July 2018) that contained qualitative data from trial non-retainers.<h4>Participants</h4>We identified 11 studies reporting qualitative data from 13 trials. The studie ...[more]

PMID: 31164359

Similar Datasets

Project description:Important considerations for exercise trials in cancer patients are contamination and differential drop-out among the control group members that might jeopardize the internal validity. This systematic review provides an overview of different control groups design characteristics of exercise-oncology trials and explores the association with contamination and drop-out rates.Randomized controlled exercise-oncology trials from two Cochrane reviews were included. Additionally, a computer-aided search using Medline (Pubmed), Embase and CINAHL was conducted after completion date of the Cochrane reviews. Eligible studies were classified according to three control group design characteristics: the exercise instruction given to controls before start of the study (exercise allowed or not); and the intervention the control group was offered during (any (e.g., education sessions or telephone contacts) or none) or after (any (e.g., cross-over or exercise instruction) or none) the intervention period. Contamination (yes or no) and excess drop-out rates (i.e., drop-out rate of the control group minus the drop-out rate exercise group) were described according to the three design characteristics of the control group and according to the combinations of these three characteristics; so we additionally made subgroups based on combinations of type and timing of instructions received.40 exercise-oncology trials were included based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. The lowest contamination (7.1% of studies) and low drop-out rates (excess drop-out rate -4.7±9.2) were found in control groups offered an intervention after the intervention period. When control groups were offered an intervention both during and after the intervention period, contamination (0%) and excess drop-out rates (-10.0±12.8%) were even lower.Control groups receiving an intervention during and after the study intervention period have lower contamination and drop-out rates. The present findings can be considered when designing future exercise-oncology trials.

Project description:Background Retention of participants is essential to ensure the statistical power and internal validity of clinical trials. Poor participant retention reduces power and can bias the estimates of intervention effect. There is sparse evidence from randomised comparisons of effective strategies to retain participants in randomised trials. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial retention interventions embedded in host clinical trials are rejected from the Cochrane review of strategies to improve retention because it only included randomised evaluations. However, the systematic assessment of non-randomised evaluations may inform trialists’ decision-making about retention methods that have been evaluated in a trial context.Therefore, we performed a systematic review to synthesise evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies in order to supplement existing randomised trial evidence. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2007 to October 2017. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for non-randomised studies that compared two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials. The retention trials had to be nested in real ‘host’ trials ( including feasibility studies) but not hypothetical trials. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies using the ROBINS-I tool and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. Results Fourteen non-randomised studies of retention were included in this review. Most retention strategies (in 10 studies) aimed to increase questionnaire response rate. Favourable strategies for increasing questionnaire response rate were telephone follow-up compared to postal questionnaire completion, online questionnaire follow-up compared to postal questionnaire, shortened version of questionnaires versus longer questionnaires, electronically transferred monetary incentives compared to cash incentives, cash compared with no incentive and reminders to non-responders (telephone or text messaging). However, each retention strategy was evaluated in a single observational study. This, together with risk of bias concerns, meant that the overall GRADE certainty was low or very low for all included studies. Conclusions This systematic review provides low or very low certainty evidence on the effectiveness of retention strategies evaluated in non-randomised studies. Some strategies need further evaluation to provide confidence around the size and direction of the underlying effect.

Project description:Most Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants multinationally. Yet, few data exist to guide investigators and sponsors regarding the types of patients enrolled in these studies and whether participant characteristics vary by region.We used data derived from four multinational phase III trials in mild to moderate AD to examine whether regional differences exist with regard to participant demographics, safety reporting, and baseline scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). We assigned 31 participating nations to 7 geographic regions: North America, South America/Mexico, Western Europe/Israel, Eastern Europe/Russia, Australia/South Africa, Asia, and Japan.North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Australia/South Africa enrolled similar proportions of men, apolipoprotein E ?4 carriers, and participants with spouse study partners, whereas Asia, Eastern Europe/Russia, and South America/Mexico had lower proportions for these variables. North America and South America/Mexico enrolled older subjects, whereas Asia and South America/Mexico enrolled less-educated participants than the remaining regions. Approved AD therapy use differed among regions (range: 73% to 92%) and was highest in North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Japan. Dual therapy was most frequent in North America (48%). On the MMSE, North America, Western Europe/Israel, Japan, and Australia/South Africa had higher (better) scores, and Asia, South America/Mexico, and Eastern Europe/Russia had lower scores. Eastern Europe/Russia had more impaired ADAS-cog11 scores than all other regions. Eastern Europe/Russia and South America/Mexico had more impaired scores for the ADCS-ADL and the CDR-SB. Mean scores for the CDR-SB in Asia were milder than all regions except Japan. NPI scores were lower in Asia and Japan than in all other regions. Participants in North America and Western Europe/Israel reported more adverse events than those in Eastern Europe/Russia and Japan.These findings suggest that trial populations differ across geographic regions on most baseline characteristics and that multinational enrollment is associated with sample heterogeneity. The data provide initial guidance with regard to the regional differences that contribute to this heterogeneity and are important to consider when planning global trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe growing use of newer communication and Internet technologies, even among low-income and transient populations, require research staff to update their outreach strategies to ensure high follow-up and participant retention rates. This paper presents the views of research assistants on the use of cell phones and the Internet to track participants in a multisite randomized trial of substance use disorder treatment.MethodsPreinterview questionnaires exploring tracking and other study-related activities were collected from 21 research staff across the 10 participating US sites. Data were then used to construct a semistructured interview guide that, in turn, was used to interview 12 of the same staff members. The questionnaires and interview data were entered in Atlas.ti and analyzed for emergent themes related to the use of technology for participant-tracking purposes.ResultsStudy staff reported that most participants had cell phones, despite having unstable physical addresses and landlines. The incoming call feature of most cell phones was useful for participants and research staff alike, and texting proved to have additional benefits. However, reliance on participants' cell phones also proved problematic. Even homeless participants were found to have access to the Internet through public libraries and could respond to study staff e-mails. Some study sites opened generic social media accounts, through which study staff sent private messages to participants. However, the institutional review board (IRB) approval process for tracking participants using social media at some sites was prohibitively lengthy. Internet searches through Google, national paid databases, obituaries, and judiciary Web sites were also helpful tools.ConclusionsResearch staff perceive that cell phones, Internet searches, and social networking sites were effective tools to achieve high follow-up rates in drug abuse research. Studies should incorporate cell phone, texting, and social network Web site information on locator forms; obtain IRB approval for contacting participants using social networking Web sites; and include Web searches, texting, and the use of social media in staff training as standard operating procedures.

Project description:Randomised control trials are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of healthcare interventions with thousands of trials published every year. Despite significant investment in infrastructure, a staggering number of clinical trials continue to face challenges with retention. Dropouts could lead to negative consequences-from lengthy delays to missing data that can undermine the results and integrity of the trial. Summarising evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies could provide complementary information to randomised evaluations that could guide trialists to the most effective ways of increasing retention of participants in clinical trials.The following electronic databases will be searched for relevant studies: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cochrane Methodology Register and the search will be limited to English-published studies during the last 10 years to increase relevance to current trials. Non-randomised studies (observational studies) including a comparison of two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials or comparing one or more strategies with no strategy will be included. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants remained at the primary analysis as determined in each retention study.This review aims to gather and evaluate evidence on the effect of retention strategies examined in non-randomised studies. It is imperative to collect evidence from obseravational studies to infer whether or not these studies could be considered a practical way to complement or even replace a broadly favourable randomised design. If we find that non-randomised studies to be included in this review are of high quality with adequate control of biases, we will recommend to trialists and others not to rely exclusively on randomised studies and to give meticulous attention to the plentiful evidence that can be obtained from non-randomised studies. Should the results of this review suggest that evaluating retention strategies in observational studies provides insufficient evidence to trialists planning their retention strategies, we will be able to say that there is little point in conducting non-randomised studies and that they would do better to invest their time and resources in a randomised evaluation if possible. Where a non-randomised study design is chosen, the review authors will offer recommendations to trialists and others regarding how to ensure that these studies are conducted in a way that can minimise the risk of bias and increase confidence in the findings.PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017072775 .

Dataset Information

Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out.

Publications

Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets