Cargando…

Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The factors which influence participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials are under-researched. Retention may be more challenging due to child developmental stages, involving additional participants, and proxy-reporting of outcomes. This systematic review and meta-anal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gaunt, Daisy M., Papastavrou Brooks, Cat, Pedder, Hugo, Crawley, Esther, Horwood, Jeremy, Metcalfe, Chris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265847/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07333-w
_version_ 1785058618874265600
author Gaunt, Daisy M.
Papastavrou Brooks, Cat
Pedder, Hugo
Crawley, Esther
Horwood, Jeremy
Metcalfe, Chris
author_facet Gaunt, Daisy M.
Papastavrou Brooks, Cat
Pedder, Hugo
Crawley, Esther
Horwood, Jeremy
Metcalfe, Chris
author_sort Gaunt, Daisy M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The factors which influence participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials are under-researched. Retention may be more challenging due to child developmental stages, involving additional participants, and proxy-reporting of outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the factors which may influence retention in paediatric trials. METHODS: Using the MEDLINE database, paediatric randomised controlled trials published between 2015 and 2019 were identified from six general and specialist high-impact factor medical journals. The review outcome was participant retention for each reviewed trial’s primary outcome. Context (e.g. population, disease) and design (e.g. length of trial) factors were extracted. Retention was examined for each context and design factor in turn, with evidence for an association being determined by a univariate random-effects meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four trials were included, and the median total retention was 0.92 (inter-quartile range 0.83 to 0.98). Higher estimates of retention were seen for trials with five or more follow-up assessments before the primary outcome, those less than 6 months between randomisation and primary outcome, and those that used an inactive data collection method. Trials involving children aged 11 and over had the higher estimated retention compared with those involving younger children. Those trials which did not involve other participants also had higher retention, than those where they were involved. There was also evidence that a trial which used an active or placebo control treatment had higher estimated retention, than treatment-as-usual. Retention increased if at least one engagement method was used. Unlike reviews of trials including all ages of participants, we did not find any association between retention and the number of treatment groups, size of trial, or type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Published paediatric RCTs rarely report the use of specific modifiable factors that improve retention. Including multiple, regular follow-ups with participants before the primary outcome may reduce attrition. Retention may be highest when the primary outcome is collected up to 6 months after a participant is recruited. Our findings suggest that qualitative research into improving retention when trials involve multiple participants such as young people, and their caregivers or teachers would be worthwhile. Those designing paediatric trials also need to consider the use of appropriate engagement methods. RESEARCH ON RESEARCH (ROR) REGISTRY: https://ror-hub.org/study/2561 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07333-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10265847
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102658472023-06-15 Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis Gaunt, Daisy M. Papastavrou Brooks, Cat Pedder, Hugo Crawley, Esther Horwood, Jeremy Metcalfe, Chris Trials Review BACKGROUND: The factors which influence participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials are under-researched. Retention may be more challenging due to child developmental stages, involving additional participants, and proxy-reporting of outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the factors which may influence retention in paediatric trials. METHODS: Using the MEDLINE database, paediatric randomised controlled trials published between 2015 and 2019 were identified from six general and specialist high-impact factor medical journals. The review outcome was participant retention for each reviewed trial’s primary outcome. Context (e.g. population, disease) and design (e.g. length of trial) factors were extracted. Retention was examined for each context and design factor in turn, with evidence for an association being determined by a univariate random-effects meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four trials were included, and the median total retention was 0.92 (inter-quartile range 0.83 to 0.98). Higher estimates of retention were seen for trials with five or more follow-up assessments before the primary outcome, those less than 6 months between randomisation and primary outcome, and those that used an inactive data collection method. Trials involving children aged 11 and over had the higher estimated retention compared with those involving younger children. Those trials which did not involve other participants also had higher retention, than those where they were involved. There was also evidence that a trial which used an active or placebo control treatment had higher estimated retention, than treatment-as-usual. Retention increased if at least one engagement method was used. Unlike reviews of trials including all ages of participants, we did not find any association between retention and the number of treatment groups, size of trial, or type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Published paediatric RCTs rarely report the use of specific modifiable factors that improve retention. Including multiple, regular follow-ups with participants before the primary outcome may reduce attrition. Retention may be highest when the primary outcome is collected up to 6 months after a participant is recruited. Our findings suggest that qualitative research into improving retention when trials involve multiple participants such as young people, and their caregivers or teachers would be worthwhile. Those designing paediatric trials also need to consider the use of appropriate engagement methods. RESEARCH ON RESEARCH (ROR) REGISTRY: https://ror-hub.org/study/2561 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07333-w. BioMed Central 2023-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10265847/ /pubmed/37316945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07333-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Gaunt, Daisy M.
Papastavrou Brooks, Cat
Pedder, Hugo
Crawley, Esther
Horwood, Jeremy
Metcalfe, Chris
Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015–2019: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265847/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07333-w
work_keys_str_mv AT gauntdaisym participantretentioninpaediatricrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinsixmajorjournals20152019systematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT papastavroubrookscat participantretentioninpaediatricrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinsixmajorjournals20152019systematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pedderhugo participantretentioninpaediatricrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinsixmajorjournals20152019systematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT crawleyesther participantretentioninpaediatricrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinsixmajorjournals20152019systematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT horwoodjeremy participantretentioninpaediatricrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinsixmajorjournals20152019systematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT metcalfechris participantretentioninpaediatricrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinsixmajorjournals20152019systematicreviewandmetaanalysis