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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCaffery, Jennifer, Mitchell, Alex, Fairhurst, Caroline, Cockayne, Sarah, Rodgers, Sara, Relton, Clare, Torgerson, David J.
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