Dataset Information

Embedding qualitative research in randomised controlled trials to improve recruitment: findings from two recruitment optimisation studies of orthopaedic surgical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recruitment of patients is one of the main challenges when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Trials of rare injuries or those that include surgical interventions pose added challenges due to the small number of potentially eligible patients and issues with patient preferences and surgeon equipoise. We explore key issues to consider when recruiting to orthopaedic surgical trials from the perspective of staff and patients with the aim of informing the development of strategies to improve recruitment in future research.

Design

Two qualitative process evaluations of a UK-wide orthopaedic surgical RCT (ACTIVE) and mixed methods randomised feasibility study (PRESTO). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed thematically.

Setting

NHS secondary care organisations throughout the UK. Interviews were undertaken via telephone.

Participants

Thirty-seven health professionals including UK-based spinal and orthopaedic surgeons and individuals involved in recruitment to the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (e.g. research nurses, surgeons, physiotherapists). Twenty-two patients including patients who agreed to participate in the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (n=15) and patients that declined participation in the ACTIVE study (n=7) were interviewed.

Results

We used a mixed methods systematic review of recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials as a framework for reporting and analysing our findings. Our findings mapped onto those identified in the systematic review and highlighted the importance of equipoise, randomisation, communication, patient's circumstances, altruism and trust in clinical and research teams. Our findings also emphasised the importance of considering how eligibility criteria are operationalised and the impact of complex patient pathways when recruiting to surgical trials. In particular, the influence of health professionals, who are not involved in trial recruitment, on patients' treatment preferences by suggesting they would receive a certain treatment ahead of recruitment consultations should not be underestimated.

Conclusions

A wealth of evidence exploring factors affecting recruitment to randomised controlled trials exists. A methodological shift is now required to ensure that this evidence is used by all those involved in recruitment and to ensure that existing knowledge is translated into methods for optimising recruitment to future trials.

Trial registration

ACTIVE: ( ISRCTN98152560 ). Registered on 06/03/2018. PRESTO: ( ISRCTN12094890 ). Registered on 22/02/2018.

SUBMITTER: Scantlebury A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8285860 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBarriers to mental health research participation are well documented including distrust of services and research; and stigma surrounding mental health. They can contribute to a lack of diversity amongst participants in mental health research, which threatens the generalisability of knowledge. Given the recent widespread use of the internet in medical research, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of key partners on the use of online (e.g. social media) and offline (e.g. in-person) recruitment as an approach to improving diversity in mental health randomised controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsFace-to-face and online interviews/focus groups with researchers working in mental health and Patient and Public Involvement partners in the United Kingdom. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.ResultsThree focus groups and three interviews were conducted with a total N = 23 participants. Four overarching themes were identified: (1) recruitment reach; (2) Demographic factors that affect selection of recruitment method; (3) safety of technology, and; (4) practical challenges. Five main factors were identified that affect the choice of recruitment method: age, complexity of mental health problem and stigma, cultural and ethnicity differences and digital divide. The use of online methods was considered more accessible to people who may feel stigmatised by their mental health condition and with a benefit of reaching a wider population. However, a common view amongst participants was that online methods require closer data monitoring for quality of responders, are not fully secure and less trustworthy compared to offline methods that enable participants to build relationships with health providers. Funding, staff time and experience, organisational support, and technical issues such as spam or phishing emails were highlighted as practical challenges facing online recruitment. All participants agreed that using a hybrid approach tailored to the population under study is paramount.ConclusionsThis study highlighted the importance of offering a flexible and multifaceted recruitment approach by integrating online with offline methods to support inclusivity and widening participation in mental health research. The findings will be used to develop considerations for researchers designing RCTs to improve recruitment in mental health research.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.Methods and findingsSix pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.ConclusionsCommunicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

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:ObjectivesTo systematically review published pretrial qualitative research studies and explore how their findings were used to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale trials.DesignQualitative evidence synthesis using thematic analysis.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Dissertation Abstracts International, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO. We included all reports of pretrial qualitative data on recruitment and retention in clinical trials up to March 2018.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form that captured study aims, design, methodological approach and main findings, including barriers and facilitators to recruitment and or retention. The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis method and reported following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Confidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.ResultsThirty-five papers (connected to 31 feasibility studies) from three different countries, published between 2010 and 2017 were included. All studies were embedded in pilot or feasibility studies to inform design aspects in preparation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Twelve themes were identified as recruitment barriers and three as recruitment facilitators. Two themes were identified as barriers for retention and none as retention facilitators. The findings from qualitative research in feasibility or pilot trials are often not explicitly linked to proposed changes to the recruitment and retention strategies to be used in the future or planned full-scale trial.ConclusionsMany trial teams do pretrial qualitative work with the aim of improving recruitment and retention in future full-scale trials. Just over half of all reports of such work do not clearly show how their findings will change the recruitment and retention strategy of the future trial. The scope of pretrial work needs to expand beyond looking for problems and also look for what might help and spend more time on retention.

Project description:BackgroundSocial media has changed the way surgeons communicate worldwide, particularly in dissemination of trial results. However, it is unclear if social media could be used in recruitment to surgical trials. This study aimed to investigate the influence of Twitter in promoting surgical recruitment in The Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty (ELF) Study.MethodsThe ELF Study was a UK-based, prospective, observational cohort that aimed to assess the influence of frailty on 90-day mortality in older adults undergoing emergency surgery. A power calculation required 500 patients to be recruited to detect a 10% change in mortality associated with frailty. A 12-week recruitment period was selected, calculated from information submitted by participating hospitals and the numbers of emergency surgeries performed in adults aged > 65 years. A Twitter handle was designed (@ELFStudy) with eye-catching logos to encourage enrolment and inform the public and clinicians involved in the study. Twitter Analytics and Twitonomy (Digonomy Pty Ltd) were used to analyse user engagement in relation to patient recruitment.ResultsAfter 90 days of data collection, 49 sites from Scotland, England and Wales recruited 952 consecutive patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, with data logged into a database created on REDCap. Target recruitment (n = 500) was achieved by week 11. A total of 591 tweets were published by @ELFStudy since its conception, making 218,136 impressions at time of writing. The number of impressions (number of times users see a particular tweet) prior to March 20th 2017 (study commencement date) was 23,335 (343.2 per tweet), compared to the recruitment period with 114,314 impressions (256.3 per tweet), ending June 20th 2017. Each additional tweet was associated with an increase in recruitment of 1.66 (95%CI 1.36 to 1.97; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe ELF Study over-recruited by nearly 100%, reaching over 200,000 people across the U.K. Branding enhanced tweet aesthetics and helped increase tweet engagement to stimulate discussion and healthy competition amongst clinicians to aid trial recruitment. Other studies may draw from the social media experiences of the ELF Study to optimise collaboration amongst researchers.Trial registrationThis study is registered online at www.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number NCT02952430 ) and has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee.