Cargando…
A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials
Background: Recruitment to trials can be challenging. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial recruitment interventions are rejected due to poor methodological quality, but systematic assessment of this substantial body of work may inform trialists’ decision-making about recruitment methods....
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000 Research Limited
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7336048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32685133 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22182.1 |
_version_ | 1783554241689812992 |
---|---|
author | Gardner, Heidi R Albarquoni, Loai El Feky, Adel Gillies, Katie Treweek, Shaun |
author_facet | Gardner, Heidi R Albarquoni, Loai El Feky, Adel Gillies, Katie Treweek, Shaun |
author_sort | Gardner, Heidi R |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Recruitment to trials can be challenging. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial recruitment interventions are rejected due to poor methodological quality, but systematic assessment of this substantial body of work may inform trialists’ decision-making about recruitment methods. Our objective was to quantify the effects of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised trials evaluated using non-randomised study designs. Methods: We searched relevant databases for non-randomised studies that included two or more interventions evaluating recruitment to trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for eligible studies, then extracted data on: recruitment intervention, setting, participant characteristics, number of participants in intervention and comparator groups. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was the number of recruits to a trial. Results: We identified 92 studies for inclusion; 90 studies aimed to improve the recruitment of participants, one aimed to improve the recruitment of GP practices, and one aimed to improve recruitment of GPs. Of the 92 included studies, 20 were at high risk of bias due to confounding; the remaining 72 were at high risk of bias due to confounding and at least one other category of the ROBINS-I tool. The 20 studies at least risk of bias were synthesised narratively based on seven broad categories; Face to face recruitment initiatives, postal invitations and responses, language adaptations, randomisation methods, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruitee, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruiter, and use of networks and databases. The utility of included studies is substantially limited due to small sample sizes, inadequate reporting, and a lack of coordination around deciding what to evaluate and how. Conclusions: Careful thought around planning, conduct, and reporting of non-randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions is required to prevent future non-randomised studies contributing to research waste. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016037718 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7336048 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | F1000 Research Limited |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73360482020-07-16 A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials Gardner, Heidi R Albarquoni, Loai El Feky, Adel Gillies, Katie Treweek, Shaun F1000Res Systematic Review Background: Recruitment to trials can be challenging. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial recruitment interventions are rejected due to poor methodological quality, but systematic assessment of this substantial body of work may inform trialists’ decision-making about recruitment methods. Our objective was to quantify the effects of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised trials evaluated using non-randomised study designs. Methods: We searched relevant databases for non-randomised studies that included two or more interventions evaluating recruitment to trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for eligible studies, then extracted data on: recruitment intervention, setting, participant characteristics, number of participants in intervention and comparator groups. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was the number of recruits to a trial. Results: We identified 92 studies for inclusion; 90 studies aimed to improve the recruitment of participants, one aimed to improve the recruitment of GP practices, and one aimed to improve recruitment of GPs. Of the 92 included studies, 20 were at high risk of bias due to confounding; the remaining 72 were at high risk of bias due to confounding and at least one other category of the ROBINS-I tool. The 20 studies at least risk of bias were synthesised narratively based on seven broad categories; Face to face recruitment initiatives, postal invitations and responses, language adaptations, randomisation methods, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruitee, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruiter, and use of networks and databases. The utility of included studies is substantially limited due to small sample sizes, inadequate reporting, and a lack of coordination around deciding what to evaluate and how. Conclusions: Careful thought around planning, conduct, and reporting of non-randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions is required to prevent future non-randomised studies contributing to research waste. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016037718 F1000 Research Limited 2020-02-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7336048/ /pubmed/32685133 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22182.1 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Gardner HR 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 | Systematic Review Gardner, Heidi R Albarquoni, Loai El Feky, Adel Gillies, Katie Treweek, Shaun A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
title | A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
title_full | A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
title_fullStr | A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
title_short | A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
title_sort | systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7336048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32685133 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22182.1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gardnerheidir asystematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT albarquoniloai asystematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT elfekyadel asystematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT gillieskatie asystematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT treweekshaun asystematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT gardnerheidir systematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT albarquoniloai systematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT elfekyadel systematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT gillieskatie systematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials AT treweekshaun systematicreviewofnonrandomisedevaluationsofstrategiestoimproveparticipantrecruitmenttorandomisedcontrolledtrials |