Suppr超能文献

改善 65 岁及以上成年人随机试验和观察性研究招募和保留的策略的证据:系统评价。

Evidence for strategies that improve recruitment and retention of adults aged 65 years and over in randomised trials and observational studies: a systematic review.

机构信息

Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.

Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Age Ageing. 2017 Nov 1;46(6):895-903. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afx057.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

adults aged ≥65 years are often excluded from health research studies. Lack of representation reduces generalisability of treatments for this age group.

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that improve recruitment and retention of adults aged ≥65 in observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

searches conducted in 10 databases for RCTs of recruitment and retention strategies in RCTs or observational studies. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility and extracted data. Studies without separate data for adults aged ≥65 were discarded. Risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

thirty-two studies were included in the review (n = 75,444). Twelve studies had low risk of bias, of which 10 had successful strategies including: Opt-out versus opt-in increased recruitment (13.6% (n = 261)-18.7% (n = 36) difference; two studies); Advance notification increased retention (1.6% difference, OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.01, 2.10, one study (n = 2,686); 9.1% difference at 4 months, 1.44; 1.08, 1.92, one study (n = 753)); Hand-delivered versus postal surveys increased response (25.1% difference; X2 = 11.40, P < 0.01; one study (n = 139)); Open randomised design versus blinded RCT increased recruitment (1.56; 1.05, 2.33) and retention (13.9% difference; 3.1%, 24.6%) in one study (n = 538). Risk of bias was high/unclear for studies in which incentives or shorter length questionnaires increased response.

DISCUSSION

in low risk of bias studies, few of the strategies that improved participation in older adults had been tested in ≥1 study. Opt-out and advance notification strategies improved recruitment and retention, respectively, although an opt-out approach may have ethical limitations. Evidence from single studies limits the generalisability of other strategies.

摘要

背景

年龄≥65 岁的成年人通常被排除在健康研究之外。这种年龄组代表性不足会降低治疗方法的普遍性。

目的

评估提高≥65 岁成年人在观察性研究和随机对照试验(RCT)中招募和保留率的策略的有效性。

方法

在 10 个数据库中进行 RCT 搜索,以查找关于 RCT 或观察性研究中招募和保留策略的 RCT。两位审查员对摘要和全文文章进行了筛选,以确定其是否符合纳入标准,并提取了数据。未为≥65 岁成年人单独提供数据的研究被排除。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。结果以叙述性方式进行综合。

结果

综述共纳入 32 项研究(n = 75444)。12 项研究的偏倚风险较低,其中 10 项策略取得了成功,包括:选择退出与选择加入相比,增加了招募率(13.6%(n = 261)与 18.7%(n = 36)之间的差异;两项研究);预先通知提高了保留率(差异 1.6%,OR 1.45;95%CI 1.01,2.10,一项研究(n = 2686);4 个月时差异 9.1%,1.44;1.08,1.92,一项研究(n = 753));亲自送达与邮寄调查相比,提高了回应率(25.1%的差异;X2 = 11.40,P < 0.01;一项研究(n = 139));开放随机设计与盲法 RCT 相比,增加了招募率(1.56;1.05,2.33)和保留率(13.9%的差异;3.1%,24.6%),一项研究(n = 538)。在研究中,激励措施或缩短问卷长度可以提高参与率,但风险较高/不明确。

讨论

在低偏倚风险的研究中,只有少数提高老年人参与度的策略在≥1 项研究中得到了检验。选择退出和预先通知策略分别提高了招募率和保留率,尽管选择退出方法可能存在伦理限制。来自单项研究的证据限制了其他策略的普遍性。

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