Investigating modifications to participant information materials to improve recruitment into a large randomized trial
HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group, Richard Haynes, Fang Chen, Elizabeth Wincott, Rejive Dayanandan, Michael J Lay, Sarah Parish, Louise Bowman, Martin J Landray, Jane Armitage, Richard Haynes, Fang Chen, Elizabeth Wincott, Rejive Dayanandan, Michael J Lay, Sarah Parish, Louise Bowman, Martin J Landray, Jane Armitage, R Collins, C Baigent, Z Chen, Y Chen, L Jiang, T Pedersen, K Rahimi, J Tobert, P Sleight, D Simpson, A Baxter, C Bray, G van Leijenhorst, Y Mitchel, O Kuznetsova, HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group, Richard Haynes, Fang Chen, Elizabeth Wincott, Rejive Dayanandan, Michael J Lay, Sarah Parish, Louise Bowman, Martin J Landray, Jane Armitage, Richard Haynes, Fang Chen, Elizabeth Wincott, Rejive Dayanandan, Michael J Lay, Sarah Parish, Louise Bowman, Martin J Landray, Jane Armitage, R Collins, C Baigent, Z Chen, Y Chen, L Jiang, T Pedersen, K Rahimi, J Tobert, P Sleight, D Simpson, A Baxter, C Bray, G van Leijenhorst, Y Mitchel, O Kuznetsova
Abstract
Background: Large randomized trials are the best method to test the efficacy and safety of treatments expected to have moderate effects. We observed a significant decline in potential participants' response to mailed invitations to participate in such trials over a 10-year period and investigated possible reasons behind this and potential modifications to the invitation process to mitigate it.
Methods: Participants who declined to participate in the HPS2-THRIVE trial were asked to give a reason. Formal focus groups were conducted to explore the reasons that potential participants might have for not participating. In addition, two embedded randomized comparisons around the timing of provision of the full participant information leaflet (PIL) and its style were conducted during recruitment into this large randomized trial. HPS2-THRIVE is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00461630).
Results: The commonest reason given for declining invitations related to mobility and transportation (despite the offer of travel expenses). Both the focus groups and potential participants who declined their invitation indicated concern about side-effects of the treatment (as presented in the PIL) as a reason for declining the invitation. Neither delaying provision of the full PIL until the potential participant attended the trial clinic, nor modifying the style of the PIL improved the proportion of potential participants entering the trial: odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.17) and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94-1.28), respectively. However, modifying the style of the PIL did increase the proportion of participants attending screening appointments (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33).
Conclusions: Many reasons given for not participating in trials are not tractable to individual trials. However, modification of the PIL does show potential to modestly improve participation. If further trials could identify similar simple interventions that were beneficial, their net effects could substantially improve trial participation and facilitate recruitment into large trials.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
- Collins R, MacMahon S. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. Lancet. 2001;357(9253):373–380. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03651-5.
- McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, Elbourne DR, Francis D, Garcia J, Roberts I, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9.
- Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002360. 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360.
- Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering therapy and of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in a wide range of patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease death: early safety and efficacy experience. Eur Heart J. 1999;20(10):725–741. doi: 10.1053/euhj.1998.1350.
- SEARCH Collaborative Group. Bowman L, Armitage J, Bulbulia R, Parish S, Collins R. Study of the effectiveness of additional reductions in cholesterol and homocysteine (SEARCH): characteristics of a randomized trial among 12064 myocardial infarction survivors. Am Heart J. 2007;154(5):815–823. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.034.
- Aung T, Haynes R, Barton J, Cox J, Murawska A, Murphy K, Lay MJ, Armitage J, Bowman L. Cost-effective recruitment methods for a large randomised trial in people with diabetes: A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes (ASCEND) Trials. 2016;17:286–297. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1354-9.
- HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group HPS2-THRIVE randomized placebo-controlled trial in 25 673 high-risk patients of ER niacin/laropiprant: trial design, pre-specified muscle and liver outcomes, and reasons for stopping study treatment. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(17):1279–1291. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht055.
- Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, Brett SJ, Castello-Cortes A, Brunner MD, Panoskaltsis N. Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(10):1018–1028. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063842.
- UK Health Regulatory Authority. . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.
- Freer Y, McIntosh N, Teunisse S, Anand KJ, Boyle EM. More information, less understanding: a randomized study on consent issues in neonatal research. Pediatrics. 2009;123(5):1301–1305. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-3860.
- Brierley G, Richardson R, Torgerson DJ. Using short information leaflets as recruitment tools did not improve recruitment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(2):147–154. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.005.
Source: PubMed