Suppr超能文献

增加随机对照试验招募的策略:系统评价。

Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review.

机构信息

Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 9;7(11):e1000368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000368.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people's awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11-2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study's main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

摘要

背景

招募参与者参与随机对照试验(RCT)对于成功进行试验至关重要。尽管之前有两项关于相关主题的系统评价,但结果(确定了具体的干预措施)没有定论,也不可推广。我们研究的目的是评估招募策略对参与 RCT 的相对有效性。

方法和发现

使用 PRISMA 指南报告系统评价的系统评价,该评价比较了将单个研究参与者招募到实际或模拟 RCT 中的方法。我们搜索了 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和相关研究的参考文献列表。在审查了超过 16000 个标题或摘要后,检索到 396 篇论文,并纳入了 37 项研究,其中至少有 59354 人中有 18812 人同意参加临床试验。招募策略大致分为四组:新型试验设计(八项研究)、招募人员差异(八项研究)、激励措施(两项研究)和提供试验信息(19 项研究)。增加人们对正在研究的健康问题的认识的策略(例如,互动计算机程序[相对风险(RR)1.48,95%置信区间(CI)1.00-2.18],参加教育课程[RR 1.14,95% CI 1.01-1.28],增加健康问卷[RR 1.37,95% CI 1.14-1.66]),或关于健康状况的视频[RR 1.75,95% CI 1.11-2.74],以及货币激励[RR1.39,95% CI 1.13-1.64 至 RR 1.53,95% CI 1.28-1.84])提高了招募率。增加患者对试验过程、招募人员差异以及各种随机化和同意设计方法的理解并没有显示出招募方面的差异。非盲法试验设计的同意率也更高,但组间随访损失的差异可能会危及研究结果。该研究的主要限制是由于 MEDLINE 定义的变化,需要修改搜索策略并进行后续搜索更新。该系统评价的摘要于 2002 年和 2007 年发表。

结论

专注于提高潜在参与者对正在研究的健康问题的认识、其对健康的潜在影响以及他们参与学习过程的招募策略似乎增加了对临床试验的招募。进一步试验招募策略,以吸引参与者提高对正在研究的健康问题的认识及其对健康的潜在影响,可能会证实这一假设。请稍后在文章中查看编辑摘要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dfc7/2976724/194a8ef50fc8/pmed.1000368.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验