Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets

Vichithranie W Madurasinghe, Peter Bower, Sandra Eldridge, David Collier, Jonathan Graffy, Shaun Treweek, Peter Knapp, Adwoa Parker, Jo Rick, Chris Salisbury, Mei See Man, David Torgerson, Rebecca Sheridan, Frank Sullivan, Sarah Cockayne, Charlotte Dack, Vichithranie W Madurasinghe, Peter Bower, Sandra Eldridge, David Collier, Jonathan Graffy, Shaun Treweek, Peter Knapp, Adwoa Parker, Jo Rick, Chris Salisbury, Mei See Man, David Torgerson, Rebecca Sheridan, Frank Sullivan, Sarah Cockayne, Charlotte Dack

Abstract

Background: The information given to people considering taking part in a trial needs to be easy to understand if those people are to become, and then remain, trial participants. However, there is a tension between providing comprehensive information and providing information that is comprehensible. User-testing is one method of developing better participant information, and there is evidence that user-tested information is better at informing participants about key issues relating to trials. However, it is not clear if user-testing also leads to changes in the rates of recruitment in trials, compared to standard trial information. As part of a programme of research, we embedded 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to see if user-tested materials led to better rates of recruitment.

Methods: Seven 'host' trials included a SWAT evaluation and randomised their participants to receive routine information sheets generated by the research teams, or information sheets optimised through user-testing. We collected data on trial recruitment and analysed the results across these trials using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised in a host trial following an invitation to take part.

Results: Six SWATs (n=27,805) provided data on recruitment. Optimised participant information sheets likely result in little or no difference in recruitment rates (7.2% versus 6.8%, pooled odds ratio = 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19, p-value = 0.63, I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: Participant information sheets developed through user testing did not improve recruitment rates. The programme of work showed that co-ordinated testing of recruitment strategies using SWATs is feasible and can provide both definitive and timely evidence on the effectiveness of recruitment strategies.

Trial registration: Healthlines Depression (ISRCTN14172341) Healthlines CVD (ISRCTN27508731) CASPER (ISRCTN02202951) ISDR (ISRCTN87561257) ECLS (NCT01925625) REFORM (ISRCTN68240461) HeLP Diabetes (ISRCTN02123133).

Keywords: Information; Randomised controlled trial; Recruitment; Research methodology; SWATs; User-testing.

Conflict of interest statement

ST was a grant-holder for the ECLS study, in which one of the SWAT evaluations was run. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Meta-analysis of primary outcome—randomisations to the host trial

References

    1. McDonald A, Knight R, Campbell M, Entwistle V, Grant A, Cook J, 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.
    1. Sully B, Julious S, Nicholl J. A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2013;14(1):166. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-166.
    1. Clarke M, Savage G, Maguire L, McAneney H. The SWAT (study within a trial) programme; embedding trials to improve the methodological design and conduct of future research. Trials. 2015;16:209. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P209.
    1. Treweek S, Lockhart P, PitKethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2):e002360. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360.
    1. Rick J, Graffy J, Knapp P, Small N, Collier D, Eldridge S, et al. Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (START): study protocol and preliminary findings on a platform for nesting studies of recruitment interventions across multiple trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):407. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-407.
    1. Cockayne S, Fairhurst C, Adamson J, Hewitt C, Hull R, Hicks K, Keenan AM, Lamb SE, Green L, McIntosh C, Menz HB, Redmond AC, Rodgers S, Torgerson DJ, Vernon W, Watson J, Knapp P, Rick J, Bower P, Eldridge S, Madurasinghe VW, Graffy J. An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1797-7.
    1. Man MS, Healthlines Study Group. Rick J, Bower P, MRC-START Group Improving recruitment to a study of telehealth management for long-term conditions in primary care: two embedded, randomised controlled trials of optimised patient information materials. Trials. 2015;16(1):309. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0820-0.
    1. Parker A, Knapp P, Treweek S, Madhurasinghe V, Littleford R, Gallant S, Sullivan F, Schembri S, Rick J, Graffy J, Collier DJ, Eldridge S, Kennedy A, Bower P. The effect of optimised patient information materials on recruitment in a lung cancer screening trial: an embedded randomised recruitment trial. Trials. 2018;19(1):503. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2896-9.
    1. Sheridan R, Knapp P, Bower P, Madhurasinghe V, Broadbent D, Awoyale L, et al. Patient recruitment to a diabetic retinopathy screening trial through optimised patient information materials: an embedded study within a trial (SWAT) F1000 Research. 2020;9:779. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.24938.1.
    1. Knapp P, Gilbody S, Holt J, Keding A, Mitchell A, Raynor D, et al. Optimised patient information materials and recruitment to a study of behavioural activation in older adults: an embedded study within a trial. F1000Research. 2020;9:417. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.24051.1.
    1. Sheridan R, Martin-Kerry J, Hudson J, Parker A, Bower P, Knapp P. Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials. 2020;21:259. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3.
    1. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Silcock J, Parkinson B. Performance-based readability testing of participant materials for a Phase I trial: TGN1412. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(9):573–578. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.026708.
    1. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Silcock J, Parkinson B. Performance-based readability testing of participant materials for a Phase 3 IVF trial. Trials. 2009;10(1):79. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-79.
    1. Knapp D, Raynor K, Silcock J, Parkinson B. Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? – a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. 2011;9(1):89. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-89.
    1. Raynor DK, Knapp P, Silcock J, Parkinson B, Feeney K. “User-testing” as a method for testing the fitness-for-purpose of written medicine information. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(3):404–410. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.03.016.
    1. Madurasinghe V, Eldridge S, on behalf of MRC START Group and Gordon Forbes on behalf of the START Expert Consensus Group Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials. Trials. 2016;17:27. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1126-y.
    1. Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Briel M, Christie J, Collett C, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 2: how to decide if a further Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is needed. Trials. 2020;21(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3980-5.
    1. Martin-Kerry J, Bower P, Young B, Graffy J, Sheridan R, Watt I, Baines P, Stones C, Preston J, Higgins S, Gamble C, Knapp P. Developing and evaluating multimedia information resources to improve engagement of children, adolescents, and their parents with trials (TRECA study): Study protocol for a series of linked randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):265. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1962-z.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅