Cargando…
Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial
Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit to target, resulting in a lack of generalisability of findings. A wide range of strategies for potentially increasing recruitment have been identified; however, their effectiveness has not been established. The aim of this study w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000 Research Limited
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6733374/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31543954 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18939.1 |
_version_ | 1783449973246918656 |
---|---|
author | McCaffery, Jennifer Mitchell, Alex Fairhurst, Caroline Cockayne, Sarah Rodgers, Sara Relton, Clare Torgerson, David J. |
author_facet | McCaffery, Jennifer Mitchell, Alex Fairhurst, Caroline Cockayne, Sarah Rodgers, Sara Relton, Clare Torgerson, David J. |
author_sort | McCaffery, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit to target, resulting in a lack of generalisability of findings. A wide range of strategies for potentially increasing recruitment have been identified; however, their effectiveness has not been established. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of handwritten personalisation of an invitation letter as part of a trial recruitment pack on recruitment to a host RCT. Methods: A pragmatic, two-armed RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing falls prevention trial (OTIS) in men and women aged 65 years and over living in the community. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive an OTIS recruitment pack containing an invitation letter on which their name was handwritten (intervention group), or one on which it was printed (control group). The primary outcome was randomisation into the host trial. Secondary outcomes related to trial eligibility and retention. Analyses were via logistic regression and Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Results: Of the 317 SWAT participants, 12 (3.8%) were randomised into the OTIS trial: 3 (handwritten: 3/159 [1.9%]; printed: 9/158 [5.7%]; difference -3.8%, 95% CI -8.0% to 0.4%). There was weak evidence, against the intervention, of a difference in the likelihood of participants being randomised into the host trial between the two groups (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.20, p=0.09). There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups on any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There was no evidence that personalisation of invitation letters improved recruitment to the OTIS trial. However, due to the small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. These findings need to be replicated across larger studies and wider populations. Registration: ISRCTN22202133. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6733374 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | F1000 Research Limited |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67333742019-09-19 Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial McCaffery, Jennifer Mitchell, Alex Fairhurst, Caroline Cockayne, Sarah Rodgers, Sara Relton, Clare Torgerson, David J. F1000Res Research Article Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit to target, resulting in a lack of generalisability of findings. A wide range of strategies for potentially increasing recruitment have been identified; however, their effectiveness has not been established. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of handwritten personalisation of an invitation letter as part of a trial recruitment pack on recruitment to a host RCT. Methods: A pragmatic, two-armed RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing falls prevention trial (OTIS) in men and women aged 65 years and over living in the community. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive an OTIS recruitment pack containing an invitation letter on which their name was handwritten (intervention group), or one on which it was printed (control group). The primary outcome was randomisation into the host trial. Secondary outcomes related to trial eligibility and retention. Analyses were via logistic regression and Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Results: Of the 317 SWAT participants, 12 (3.8%) were randomised into the OTIS trial: 3 (handwritten: 3/159 [1.9%]; printed: 9/158 [5.7%]; difference -3.8%, 95% CI -8.0% to 0.4%). There was weak evidence, against the intervention, of a difference in the likelihood of participants being randomised into the host trial between the two groups (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.20, p=0.09). There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups on any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There was no evidence that personalisation of invitation letters improved recruitment to the OTIS trial. However, due to the small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. These findings need to be replicated across larger studies and wider populations. Registration: ISRCTN22202133. F1000 Research Limited 2019-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6733374/ /pubmed/31543954 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18939.1 Text en Copyright: © 2019 McCaffery J et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article McCaffery, Jennifer Mitchell, Alex Fairhurst, Caroline Cockayne, Sarah Rodgers, Sara Relton, Clare Torgerson, David J. Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial |
title | Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial |
title_full | Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial |
title_fullStr | Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial |
title_short | Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial |
title_sort | does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? a randomised controlled study within a trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6733374/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31543954 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18939.1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mccafferyjennifer doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT mitchellalex doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT fairhurstcaroline doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT cockaynesarah doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT rodgerssara doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT reltonclare doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT torgersondavidj doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial AT doeshandwritingthenameofapotentialtrialparticipantonaninvitationletterimproverecruitmentratesarandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial |