Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants.

Methods

This is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial (‘EQUIP’) recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation.

Results

Thirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research.

Trial registration numbers

ISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358. Registered on 14 May 2014.
Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26. Registered on 21 January 2016.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Sully BG, Julious SA, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
CenterWatch. State of the clinical trials industry 2009: a sourcebook of charts and statistics. Boston: CenterWatch; 2009.
3.
Whiteford HA, Ferrari AJ, Degenhardt L, Feigin V, Vos T. The global burden of mental, neurological and substance use disorders: an analysis from the global burden of disease study 2010. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0116820.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Olsen K, Howel D, Barber R, Ford GA, Gallagher P, McAllister-Williams RH, Nilsson J, O’Brien J, Parker J, Thomas A. Lessons from a pilot and feasibility randomised trial in depression (Blood pressure Rapid Intensive Lowering And Normal Treatment for Mood and cognition in persistent depression (BRILiANT mood study)). Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015;1(1):1–11.CrossRef
5.
Adams CE. Many more reasons behind difficulties in recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials in psychiatry. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2013;22(04):321–3.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Leeson VC, Tyrer P. The advance of research governance in psychiatry: one step forward, two steps back. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2013;22(04):313–20.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bryant K, Wicks MN, Willis N. Recruitment of older African American males for depression research: lessons learned. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2014;28(1):17–20.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Woodall A, Morgan C, Sloan C, Howard L. Barriers to participation in mental health research: are there specific gender, ethnicity and age related barriers? BMC Psychiatry. 2010;2:10–103.
9.
Serretti A, Artioli P. Ethical problems in pharmacogenetic studies of psychiatric disorders. Pharmacogenomics J. 2006;6(5):289–95.PubMed
10.
11.
Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrom M, Johansen M, Taskila TK, Sullivan FM, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell ED. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;3(2):e002360.CrossRef
12.
Rick J, Graffy J, Knapp P, Small N, Collier D, Eldridge S, Kennedy A, Salisbury C, Treweek S, Torgerson D, Wallace P, Madurasinghe V, Hughes-Morley A, Bower P. Systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START): study protocol for embedded, randomized controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Smith V, Clarke M, Devane D, Begley C, Shorter G, Maguire L. SWAT 1: what effects do site visits by the principal investigator have on recruitment in a multicentre randomized trial? J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(3):136–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Adamson J, Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ. Producing better evidence on how to improve randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2015;351:351.
16.
Anonymous. Education section—studies within a trial (SWAT). J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(3):165.
17.
Madurasinghe VW, Eldridge S, on behalf of the MRC START Group and Gordon Forbes on behalf of the START Expert Consensus Group. Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials. Trials. 2016;17:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Man MS, Rick J, Bower P. 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;16:309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Bower P, Collier D, Eldridge S, Graffy J, Kennedy A, Knapp P, Hughes-Morley A, Rick J, Salisbury C, Small N. A multimedia intervention to enhance recruitment to clinical trials in primary care and community settings: process of development and evaluation. Trials. 2013;14 Suppl 1:90.CrossRef
20.
National Institute for Health Research. Embedding health research: National Institute for Health Research Annual Report 2009/10. London: Department of Health; 2010. Crown Copyright.
21.
INVOLVE. Defining patient and public involvement. 2015.
22.
Stewart D, Wilson R, Selby P, Darbyshire J. Patient and public involvement. Ann Oncol. 2011;22 Suppl 7:vii54–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35(4):216–24.CrossRef
24.
Tritter JQ, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy (New York). 2006;76(2):156–68.CrossRef
25.
26.
Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: National Institute for Health Research; 2009.
27.
Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who’s sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(3):181–5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy (New York). 2002;61(2):213–36.CrossRef
29.
Gross D, Fogg ÃL. Clinical trials in the 21st century: the case for participant-centered research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(6):530–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin F-P, Pollender H, Légaré F. Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(01):31–42.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2012;24(1):28–38.CrossRef
32.
Evans D. Patient and public involvement in research in the English NHS: a documentary analysis of the complex interplay of evidence and policy. Evid Policy A J Res Debate Pract. 2014;10(3):361–77.CrossRef
33.
Forbat L, Hubbard G, Kearney N. Patient and public involvement: models and muddles. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(18):2547–54.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Heal Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.CrossRef
36.
Barber R, Boote J, Parry G. Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Heal Expect. 2012;15(3):229–41.CrossRef
37.
Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, Beresford P, Brady L, Brett J. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35(6):628–32.CrossRef
38.
Hughes-Morley A, Young B, Waheed W, Small N, Bower P. Factors affecting recruitment into depression trials: systematic review, meta-synthesis and conceptual framework. J Affect Disord. 2015;172C:274–90.CrossRef
39.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Reynolds WW, Nelson RM. Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(10):2105–15.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Deakin CT, Alexander IE, Kerridge I. Accepting risk in clinical research: is the gene therapy field becoming too risk-averse? Mol Ther. 2009;17(11):1842–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Grisso T. Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and risk factors. IRB. 2004;26(2):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Snowdon C, Elbourne D, Garcia J. Declining enrolment in a clinical trial and injurious misconceptions: is there a flipside to the therapeutic misconception? Clin Ethics. 2007;2(4):193–200.CrossRef
44.
Eborall HC, Stewart MC, Cunningham-Burley S, Price JF, Fowkes FGR. Accrual and drop out in a primary prevention randomised controlled trial: qualitative study. Trials. 2011;12:7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Hughes-Morley A, Young B, Hempel R, Russell I, Waheed W, Bower P. What can we learn from trial decliners about improving recruitment? Qualitative study. Trials. 2016;17(494).
46.
Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(5):381–6.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Crocker J, Hughes-Morley A, Petit-Zeman S, Rees S. Assessing the impact of patient and public involvement on recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials. 2015;16 Suppl 2:O91.CrossRefPubMedCentral
48.
Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke‐Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Heal Expect. 2008;11(1):72–84.CrossRef
49.
Groves RM, Cialdini RB, Couper MP. Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opin Q. 1992;56(4):475–95.CrossRef
50.
Free CJ, Hoile E, Knight R, Robertson S, Devries KM. Do messages of scarcity increase trial recruitment? Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(1):36–9.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relations. 1954;7(2):117–40.CrossRef
52.
53.
54.
Chambers R, O’Brien LM, Linnell S, Sharp S. Why don’t health researchers report consumer involvement? Qual Prim Care. 2004;12(2):151–7.
55.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM Study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. 2010.
56.
Möhler R, Kopke S, Meyer G. Criteria for Reporting the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CReDECI 2). Trials. 2015;16:204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
National Institute for Health Research. NIHR HS&DR study wins national award for involving service users and carers. 2014.
58.
Bower P, Roberts C, O’Leary N, Callaghan P, Bee P, Fraser C, Gibbons C, Olleveant N, Rogers A, Davies L, Drake R, Sanders C, Meade O, Grundy A, Walker L, Cree L, Berzins K, Brooks H, Beatty S, Cahoon P, Rolfe A, Lovell K. A cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of a training programme for mental health professionals to enhance user involvement in care planning in service users with severe mental health issues (EQUIP): study protocol for a randomised co. Trials. 2015;16(1):348.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Sanders EB-N. Generative tools for co-designing. In: Scrivener SAR, Ball LJ, Woodcock A, editors. Collaborative design: proceedings of codesigning 2000. London: Springer London; 2000. p. 3–12.CrossRef
60.
Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5–18.CrossRef
61.
Brueton VC, Tierney JF, Stenning S, Meredith S, Harding S, Nazareth I, Rait G. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2).
62.
63.
Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365(9467):1348–53.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Department for Communities and Local Government. English indices of deprivation 2015. England: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2015.
65.
66.
Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(421):9–25.
67.
Tramm R, Daws K, Schadewaldt V. Clinical trial recruitment—a complex intervention? J Clin Nurs. 2013:22(17-18):2436–43.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Bagley HJ, Short H, Harman NL, Hickey HR, Gamble CL, Woolfall K, Young B, Williamson PR. A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials—a work in progress. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):15.CrossRef
69.
Stocks SJ, Giles SJ, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Campbell SM. Application of a tool for the evaluation of public and patient involvement in research. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e006390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, Plomer K, Dignan M, Wenzel L, Fairclough D, Habermann T, Schnell L, Quella S, Cella D, E. C. O. Group. Randomised, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:836–42.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Liénard J-L, Quinaux E, Fabre-Guillevin E, Piedbois P, Jouhaud A, Decoster G, Buyse M. Impact of on-site initiation visits on patient recruitment and data quality in a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Clin Trials. 2006;3(5):486–92.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Kimmick GG, Peterson BL, Kornblith AB, Mandelblatt J, Johnson JL, Wheeler J, Heinze R, Cohen HJ, Muss HB. Improving accrual of older persons to cancer treatment trials: a randomized trial comparing an educational intervention with standard information: CALGB 360001. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(10):2201–7.CrossRefPubMed
73.
74.
75.
Staley K, Buckland SA, Hayes H, Tarpey M. ‘The missing links’: understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research. Heal Expect. 2014;17(6):755–64.CrossRef
76.
Buchbinder SP, Metch B, Holte SE, Scheer S, Coletti A, Vittinghoff E. Determinants of Enrollment in a preventive HIV vaccine trial: hypothetical versus actual willingness and barriers to participation. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;36(1):604–12.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Wisdom K, Neighbors K, Williams VH, Havstad SL, Tilley BC. Recruitment of African Americans with type 2 diabetes to a randomized controlled trial using three sources. Ethn Health. 2002;7(4):267–78.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Graham AC, Raisch DW, Fye CL, Sather MR. Assessment of the impact of a patient clinical trials handbook among pharmacy students. Clin Ther. 2005;27(2):238–45.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Kruse AY, Kjaergard LL, Krogsgaard K, Gluud C, Mortensen EL, Gottschau A, Bjerg AM. A randomised trial assessing the impact of written information on outpatients’ knowledge about attitude toward randomised clinical trials. The INFO trial group. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:223–40.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Snape D, Kirkham J, Britten N, Gradinger F, Looban F, Popay J. Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(6):e004943.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
81.
Burns T, Catty J, Becker T, Drake RE, Fioritti A, Knapp M, Lauber C, Rössler W, Tomov T, van Busschbach J, White S, Wiersma D. The effectiveness of supported employment for people with severe mental illness: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;370:1146–52.CrossRefPubMed
82.
World Health Organization. Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
83.
World Health Organization. Mental health: suicide prevention (SUPRE). 2013.
84.
Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, Bell P, Goodare H, Hanley B, Preston J, Walker A, Williamson P, Young B. Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e005234.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
85.
86.
Patterson S, Trite J, Weaver T. Activity and views of service users involved in mental health research: UK survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(1):68–75.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Larkey LK, Staten LK, Ritenbaugh C, Hall RA, Buller DB, Bassford T, Altimari BR. Recruitment of Hispanic women to the Women’s Health Initiative. the case of Embajadoras in Arizona. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(3):289–98.CrossRefPubMed
88.
Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiat. 2013;203(5):381–86.CrossRef
89.
Free C, Hoile E, Robertson S, Knight R. Three controlled trials of interventions to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial of mobile phone based smoking cessation support. Clin Trials. 2010;7(3):265–73.CrossRefPubMed
90.
Corrigan PW, Watson AC. The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2002;9(1):35–53.CrossRef
91.
Rüsch N, Angermeyer MC, Corrigan PW. Mental illness stigma: concepts, consequences, and initiatives to reduce stigma. Eur Psychiatry. 2005;20(8):529–39.CrossRefPubMed
92.
Clement S, Schauman O, Graham T, Maggioni F, Evans-Lacko S, Bezborodovs N, Morgan C, Rüsch N, Brown JSL, Thornicroft G. What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychol Med. 2014;45:1–17.
93.
Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, Poland F, Staniszewska S, Kendall S, Munday D, Cowe M, Peckham S. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study. Heal Serv Deliv Res. 2015;3(38):1–176.CrossRef
94.
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):573–8.CrossRefPubMed
95.
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):404–10.CrossRefPubMed
96.
Durand M-A, Alam S, Grande SW, Elwyn G. Much clearer with pictures’: using community-based participatory research to design and test a Picture Option Grid for underserved patients with breast cancer. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
97.
Edge D, Degnan A, Cotterill S, Berry K, Drake R, Baker R, Barrowclough C, Hughes-Morley A, Grey P, Bhugra D, Cahoon P, Tarrier N, Lewis S, Abel K. Culturally-adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) for African-Caribbeans diagnosed with schizophrenia and their families: a feasibility study protocol of implementation and acceptability. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2(1):39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
98.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial
Publication date
01-12-2016
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1718-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks (VBI Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Reducing the psychosocial impact of aphasia on mood and quality of life in people with aphasia and the impact of caregiving in family members through the Aphasia Action Success Knowledge (Aphasia ASK) program: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

A home-based exercise intervention for caregivers of persons with dementia: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

High-dose intravenously administered iron versus orally administered iron in blood donors with iron deficiency: study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial

Study protocol

Early biliary decompression versus conservative treatment in acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Service-integration approaches for families with low income: a Families First Edmonton, community-based, randomized, controlled trial