Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs)

Authors: Joanne Coyle, Amy Rogers, Rachel Copland, Giorgia De Paoli, Thomas M. MacDonald, Isla S. Mackenzie, on behalf of the Trials@Home Consortium

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) are clinical trials where all or most trial activities occur in or near participants’ homes instead of hospitals or research sites. While more convenient for participants, DCTs may offer limited opportunities to build trust with investigators and trial teams. This qualitative analysis explored DCT stakeholder views to inform strategies for maximising participant recruitment, retention, and adherence.

Methods

A secondary analysis of original interview transcripts focused on participant engagement: recruitment, retention, and adherence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including trial managers and administrators, investigators, nurses, vendors, and patient representatives. Interview data were coded using a thematic approach to generate descriptive themes.

Results

Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Three components of participant engagement in DCTs were identified: identifying and attracting potential participants, retaining participants and encouraging adherence, and involvement of patients and the public. Interviewees believed that a potential participant’s beliefs about research value and their trust in the research team strongly influenced the likelihood of taking part in a DCT. Early involvement of patients was identified as one way to gauge participant priorities. However, perceived burden was seen as a barrier to recruitment. Factors influencing retention and adherence were related to the same underlying motivators that drove recruitment: personal values, circumstances, and burden. Being part of a DCT should not conflict with the original motivations to participate.

Conclusion

Recruitment, retention, and adherence in DCTs are driven by factors that have previously been found to affect conventional clinical trials. Increasing patient and public involvement can address many of these factors. In contrast to conventional trials, DCTs are perceived as requiring greater emphasis on communication, and contact, to engender trust between participants and researchers despite a relative lack of in-person interaction.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Steinhubl SR, Wolff-Hughes DL, Nilsen W, Iturriaga E, Califf RM. Digital clinical trials: creating a vision for the future. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:126.CrossRef Steinhubl SR, Wolff-Hughes DL, Nilsen W, Iturriaga E, Califf RM. Digital clinical trials: creating a vision for the future. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:126.CrossRef
3.
4.
go back to reference 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(1):259.CrossRef 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(1):259.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Wong CA, Song WB, Jiao M, et al. Strategies for research participant engagement: a synthetic review and conceptual framework. Clin Trials. 2021;18(4):457–65.CrossRef Wong CA, Song WB, Jiao M, et al. Strategies for research participant engagement: a synthetic review and conceptual framework. Clin Trials. 2021;18(4):457–65.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Perez MV, Mahaffey KW, Hedlin H, et al. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(20):1909–17.CrossRef Perez MV, Mahaffey KW, Hedlin H, et al. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(20):1909–17.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17.CrossRef Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:MR000013.PubMed Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:MR000013.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Gillies K, Kearney A, Keenan C, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3:MR000032.PubMed Gillies K, Kearney A, Keenan C, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3:MR000032.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Stergiopoulos S, Michaels DL, Kunz BL, Getz KA. Measuring the impact of patient engagement and patient centricity in clinical research and development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(1):103–16.CrossRef Stergiopoulos S, Michaels DL, Kunz BL, Getz KA. Measuring the impact of patient engagement and patient centricity in clinical research and development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(1):103–16.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Patrick-Lake B. Patient engagement in clinical trials: the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative’s leadership from theory to practical implementation. Clin Trials. 2018;15(1_suppl):19–22.CrossRef Patrick-Lake B. Patient engagement in clinical trials: the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative’s leadership from theory to practical implementation. Clin Trials. 2018;15(1_suppl):19–22.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, et al. Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis: report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group. Value Health. 2020;23(6):677–88.CrossRef Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, et al. Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis: report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group. Value Health. 2020;23(6):677–88.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Englander. The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. J Phenomenol Psychol. 2012. p. 13–35. Englander. The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. J Phenomenol Psychol. 2012. p. 13–35.
17.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wilkins CH, Edwards TL, Stroud M, et al. The Recruitment Innovation Center: developing novel, person-centered strategies for clinical trial recruitment and retention. J Clin Transl Sci. 2021;5(1):e194.CrossRef Wilkins CH, Edwards TL, Stroud M, et al. The Recruitment Innovation Center: developing novel, person-centered strategies for clinical trial recruitment and retention. J Clin Transl Sci. 2021;5(1):e194.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs)
Authors
Joanne Coyle
Amy Rogers
Rachel Copland
Giorgia De Paoli
Thomas M. MacDonald
Isla S. Mackenzie
on behalf of the Trials@Home Consortium
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06521-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue