Treweek Shaun, Mitchell Elizabeth, Pitkethly Marie, Cook Jonathan, Kjeldstrøm Monica, Taskila Taina, Johansen Marit, Sullivan Frank, Wilson Sue, Jackson Catherine, Jones Ritu
Division of Clinical & Population Sciences and Education, University of Dundee, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee, UK, DD2 4BF.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20(1):MR000013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4.
BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to randomised controlled trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register - CMR (The Cochrane Library (online) Issue 1 2008) (searched 20 February 2008); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to date of search) (searched 06 May 2008); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to date of search) (searched 16 May 2008); ERIC, CSA (1966 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); and National Research Register (online) (Issue 3 2007) (searched 03 September 2007); C2-SPECTR (searched 09 April 2008). We also searched PubMed (25 March 2008) to retrieve "related articles" for 15 studies included in a previous version of this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. Studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention, or which evaluated incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit patients were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to describe the effects in individual trials, and assessed heterogeneity of these ratios between trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials with more than 26,604 participants. There were 24 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while three evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.18), use of opt-out, rather than opt-in, procedures for contacting potential trial participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34). However, some of these strategies have disadvantages, which may limit their widespread use. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded. The effects of many other recruitment strategies are unclear; examples include the use of video to provide trial information to potential participants and modifying the training of recruiters. Many studies looked at recruitment to hypothetical trials and it is unclear how applicable these results are to real trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trialists can increase recruitment to their trials by using the strategies shown to be effective in this review: telephone reminders; use of opt-out, rather than opt-in; procedures for contacting potential trial participants and open designs. Some strategies (e.g. open trial designs) need to be considered carefully before use because they also have disadvantages. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded.
背景:招募参与者参与试验可能极其困难。确定能够改善试验招募情况的策略将使试验者和健康研究都受益。 目的:量化改善随机对照试验参与者招募策略的效果。 检索策略:我们检索了Cochrane方法学综述小组专门注册库 - CMR(《Cochrane图书馆》(在线)2008年第1期)(检索日期为2008年2月20日);MEDLINE,Ovid(1950年至检索日期)(检索日期为2008年5月6日);EMBASE,Ovid(1980年至检索日期)(检索日期为2008年5月16日);教育资源信息中心,CSA(1966年至检索日期)(检索日期为2008年3月19日);科学引文索引扩展版,ISI科学网(1975年至检索日期)(检索日期为2008年3月19日);社会科学引文索引,ISI科学网(1975年至检索日期)(检索日期为2008年3月19日);以及国家研究注册库(在线)(2007年第3期)(检索日期为2007年9月3日);C2 - SPECTR(检索日期为2008年4月9日)。我们还检索了PubMed(2008年3月25日)以获取本综述先前版本中纳入的15项研究的“相关文章”。 入选标准:关于增加随机对照试验招募人数方法的随机和半随机对照试验。这包括非医疗保健研究以及招募参与假设性试验的研究。旨在提高问卷回复率或试验保留率的研究,或评估临床医生招募患者的激励措施和抑制因素的研究被排除。 数据收集与分析:提取了关于所评估方法的数据;研究开展所在的国家;人群的性质;研究环境的性质;拟招募进入的研究的性质;随机化或半随机化方法;以及每个干预组的人数和比例。我们使用风险比及其95%置信区间来描述各个试验的效果,并评估试验之间这些比率的异质性。 主要结果:我们确定了27项符合条件的试验,涉及超过26,604名参与者。有24项研究涉及直接针对试验参与者的干预措施,而三项评估了针对招募参与者人员的干预措施。所有研究均在医疗保健领域。一些干预措施在增加招募方面有效:给未回复者打电话提醒(风险比2.66,95%置信区间1.37至5.18),采用退出而非加入程序来联系潜在试验参与者(风险比1.39,95%置信区间1.06至1.84),以及采用开放设计,即参与者知道他们在试验中接受何种治疗(风险比1.25,95%置信区间1.18至1.34)。然而,其中一些策略存在缺点,这可能会限制它们的广泛应用。例如,退出程序存在争议,而且开放设计从定义上讲是不设盲的。许多其他招募策略的效果尚不清楚;例如,使用视频向潜在参与者提供试验信息以及修改招募人员的培训。许多研究关注的是假设性试验的招募情况,尚不清楚这些结果对实际试验的适用性如何。 作者结论:试验者可以通过使用本综述中显示有效的策略来增加其试验的招募人数:打电话提醒;采用退出而非加入程序;联系潜在试验参与者的程序以及开放设计。一些策略(如开放试验设计)在使用前需要仔细考虑,因为它们也有缺点。例如,退出程序存在争议,而且开放设计从定义上讲是不设盲的。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-1-20
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-4-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-12-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-9-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-9-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-2-8