Cargando…
Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study
BACKGROUND: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment que...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29490702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2544-4 |
_version_ | 1783303129370984448 |
---|---|
author | Healy, Patricia Galvin, Sandra Williamson, Paula R. Treweek, Shaun Whiting, Caroline Maeso, Beccy Bray, Christopher Brocklehurst, Peter Moloney, Mary Clarke Douiri, Abdel Gamble, Carrol Gardner, Heidi R. Mitchell, Derick Stewart, Derek Jordan, Joan O’Donnell, Martin Clarke, Mike Pavitt, Sue H. Guegan, Eleanor Woodford Blatch-Jones, Amanda Smith, Valerie Reay, Hannah Devane, Declan |
author_facet | Healy, Patricia Galvin, Sandra Williamson, Paula R. Treweek, Shaun Whiting, Caroline Maeso, Beccy Bray, Christopher Brocklehurst, Peter Moloney, Mary Clarke Douiri, Abdel Gamble, Carrol Gardner, Heidi R. Mitchell, Derick Stewart, Derek Jordan, Joan O’Donnell, Martin Clarke, Mike Pavitt, Sue H. Guegan, Eleanor Woodford Blatch-Jones, Amanda Smith, Valerie Reay, Hannah Devane, Declan |
author_sort | Healy, Patricia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. METHODS: This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. RESULTS: A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was “How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?” The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie. CONCLUSION: The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5831203 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58312032018-03-05 Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study Healy, Patricia Galvin, Sandra Williamson, Paula R. Treweek, Shaun Whiting, Caroline Maeso, Beccy Bray, Christopher Brocklehurst, Peter Moloney, Mary Clarke Douiri, Abdel Gamble, Carrol Gardner, Heidi R. Mitchell, Derick Stewart, Derek Jordan, Joan O’Donnell, Martin Clarke, Mike Pavitt, Sue H. Guegan, Eleanor Woodford Blatch-Jones, Amanda Smith, Valerie Reay, Hannah Devane, Declan Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. METHODS: This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. RESULTS: A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was “How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?” The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie. CONCLUSION: The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process. BioMed Central 2018-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5831203/ /pubmed/29490702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2544-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Healy, Patricia Galvin, Sandra Williamson, Paula R. Treweek, Shaun Whiting, Caroline Maeso, Beccy Bray, Christopher Brocklehurst, Peter Moloney, Mary Clarke Douiri, Abdel Gamble, Carrol Gardner, Heidi R. Mitchell, Derick Stewart, Derek Jordan, Joan O’Donnell, Martin Clarke, Mike Pavitt, Sue H. Guegan, Eleanor Woodford Blatch-Jones, Amanda Smith, Valerie Reay, Hannah Devane, Declan Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study |
title | Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study |
title_full | Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study |
title_fullStr | Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study |
title_full_unstemmed | Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study |
title_short | Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study |
title_sort | identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a james lind alliance priority setting partnership – the priority (prioritising recruitment in randomised trials) study |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29490702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2544-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT healypatricia identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT galvinsandra identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT williamsonpaular identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT treweekshaun identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT whitingcaroline identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT maesobeccy identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT braychristopher identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT brocklehurstpeter identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT moloneymaryclarke identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT douiriabdel identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT gamblecarrol identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT gardnerheidir identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT mitchellderick identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT stewartderek identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT jordanjoan identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT odonnellmartin identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT clarkemike identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT pavittsueh identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT gueganeleanorwoodford identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT blatchjonesamanda identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT smithvalerie identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT reayhannah identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy AT devanedeclan identifyingtrialrecruitmentuncertaintiesusingajameslindallianceprioritysettingpartnershipthepriorityprioritisingrecruitmentinrandomisedtrialsstudy |