56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Substantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope.

          Objectives

          To review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

          Data sources and study selection

          HTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed.

          Data extraction

          Information was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers.

          Main outcome measures

          Target sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data).

          Results

          This review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43–2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79–97%).

          Conclusions

          There is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

            Background A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. Methods The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Results Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Conclusion Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A Wilcoxon-type test for trend.

              J Cuzick (1985)
              An extension of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test is developed to handle the situation in which a variable is measured for individuals in three or more (ordered) groups and a non-parametric test for trend across these groups is desired. The uses of the test are illustrated by two examples from cancer research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                20 March 2017
                : 7
                : 3
                : e015276
                Affiliations
                School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield , Sheffield, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Stephen J Walters; s.j.walters@ 123456sheffield.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-8126
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6710-5403
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-015276
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276
                5372123
                28320800
                c0f5e5c8-19c7-4a98-9370-cbbea7c5044f
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 22 November 2016
                : 23 January 2017
                : 2 February 2017
                Categories
                Research Methods
                Research
                1506
                1730
                1704
                1724

                Medicine
                recruitment,retention,randomised controlled trials,health technology assessment,publicly funded,review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content33

                Cited by194

                Most referenced authors643