Dataset Information

Recruitment and retention rates in randomised controlled trials of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To quantify recruitment, retention and differential retention rates and associated trial, participant and intervention characteristics in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL from 1990 to April 20, 2020.

Study selection

RCTs including people with multimorbidity comparing exercise therapy with a non-exposed comparator group reporting at least one of the following outcomes: physical function, health-related quality of life, depression symptoms, or anxiety symptoms.

Data extraction and synthesis

Recruitment rates (proportion of people randomised/proportion of people eligible), retention rates (proportion of people providing the outcomes of interest/proportion randomised) and differential retention rates (difference in proportion of people providing the outcomes in the intervention group and comparator group) were calculated. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled proportions. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane ´Risk of Bias tool 2.0´ for individual studies, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

Results

Twenty-three RCTs with 3363 people were included. The pooled prevalence for recruitment rate was 75% (95%CI 66 to 84%). The pooled prevalence for retention rate was 90% (95%CI 86 to 94%) at the end of the intervention (12 weeks; interquartile range (IQR) (12 to 12)). Meta-regression analyses showed that increasing age and including a higher proportion of people with hypertension was associated with lower retention rates. Retention rates did not differ between the intervention and comparator groups. The overall quality of the evidence was deemed very low.

Conclusion

Three in four eligible people with multimorbidity were randomised to RCTs using exercise therapy, of which nine out of 10 provided end of treatment outcomes with no difference seen between the intervention and comparison groups. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to large differences between the included studies.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov CRD42020161329 . Registered on 28 April 2020.

SUBMITTER: Harris LK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204443 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy on physical and psychosocial health in people with multimorbidity. DESIGN:Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from 1990 to April 20th, 2020 and Cochrane reviews on the effect of exercise therapy for each of the aforementioned conditions, reference lists of the included studies, the WHO registry and citation tracking on included studies in Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION:RCTs investigating the benefit of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity, defined as two or more of the following conditions: osteoarthritis (of the knee or hip), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, depression, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on at least one of the following outcomes: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physical function, depression or anxiety. SUMMARY AND QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE:Meta-analyses using a random-effects model to assess the benefit of exercise therapy and the risk of non-serious and serious adverse events according to the Food and Drug Administration definition. Meta-regression analyses to investigate the impact of pre-specified mediators of effect estimates. Cochrane 'Risk of Bias Tool' 2.0 and the GRADE assessment to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. RESULTS:Twenty-three RCTs with 3363 people, testing an exercise therapy intervention (mean duration 13.0 weeks, SD 4.0) showed that exercise therapy improved HRQoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95 % CI 0.14 to 0.61) and objectively measured physical function (SMD 0.33, 95 % CI 0.17 to 0.49), and reduced depression symptoms (SMD -0.80, 95 % CI -1.21 to -0.40) and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.99 to 0.01). Exercise therapy was not associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.96, 95 % CI 0.53-1.76). By contrast, exercise therapy was associated with a reduced risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.62, 95 % CI 0.49 to 0.78). Meta-regression showed that increasing age was associated with lower effect sizes for HRQoL and greater baseline depression severity was associated with greater reduction of depression symptoms. The overall quality of evidence for all the outcomes was downgraded to low, mainly due to risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise therapy appears to be safe and to have a beneficial effect on physical and psychosocial health in people with multimorbidity. Although the evidence supporting this was of low quality, it highlights the potential of exercise therapy in the management and care of this population.

Project description:BackgroundRecruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email or text-messaging, could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated.ResultsWe identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, Internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text-messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people's attitudes towards the use of digital tools.ConclusionsThis systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research.RegistrationNot registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project's Advisory Board.

Project description:This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. To identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation. Systematic review. The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. 45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters. There are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.Methods and findingsA systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people's awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11-2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study's main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.ConclusionRecruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and the optimal type and volume of aerobic exercise (AE) in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are not established. We therefore assessed the efficacy of different types and volumes of AE in FMS. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and SPORTDISCUS (through April 2009) and the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews on AE in FMS were systematically reviewed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AE compared with controls (treatment as usual, attention placebo, active therapy) and head-to-head comparisons of different types of AE were included. Two authors independently extracted articles using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs comparing AE with controls and seven RCTs comparing different types of AE with a total of 2,494 patients were reviewed. Effects were summarised using standardised mean differences (95% confidence intervals) by random effect models. AE reduced pain (-0.31 (-0.46, -0.17); P<0.001), fatigue (-0.22 (-0.38, -0.05); P=0.009), depressed mood (-0.32 (-0.53, -0.12); P=0.002) and limitations of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (-0.40 (-0.60, -0.20); P<0.001), and improved physical fitness (0.65 (0.38, 0.95); P<0.001), post treatment. Pain was significantly reduced post treatment by land-based and water-based AE, exercises with slight to moderate intensity and frequency of two or three times per week. Positive effects on depressed mood, HRQOL and physical fitness could be maintained at follow-up. Continuing exercise was associated with positive outcomes at follow-up. Risks of bias analyses did not change the robustness of the results. Few studies reported a detailed exercise protocol, thus limiting subgroup analyses of different types of exercise. CONCLUSIONS: An aerobic exercise programme for FMS patients should consist of land-based or water-based exercises with slight to moderate intensity two or three times per week for at least 4 weeks. The patient should be motivated to continue exercise after participating in an exercise programme.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful.MethodsA scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach.ResultsResponses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants.ConclusionsOur studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.