Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Methodology

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

Authors: Dan Brunsdon, Linda Biesty, Peter Brocklehurst, Valerie Brueton, Declan Devane, Jim Elliott, Sandra Galvin, Carrol Gamble, Heidi Gardner, Patricia Healy, Kerenza Hood, Joan Jordan, Doris Lanz, Beccy Maeso, Amanda Roberts, Imogen Skene, Irene Soulsby, Derek Stewart, David Torgerson, Shaun Treweek, Caroline Whiting, Sharon Wren, Andrew Worrall, Katie Gillies

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders.

Methods

This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions.
There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials.

Results

A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.​priorityresearch​.​ie.

Conclusion

The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Walsh M, Sackett D, Deveraux PJ. When RCT participants are lost to follow up. Why even a few can matter. Clin Trials. 2015;12:537–9.CrossRef Walsh M, Sackett D, Deveraux PJ. When RCT participants are lost to follow up. Why even a few can matter. Clin Trials. 2015;12:537–9.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gillies K, Bower P, Elliott J, MacLennan G, Newlands RSN, Ogden M, Treweek SP, Wells M, Witham MD, Young B, Francis JJ. Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol. Trials. 2018;19:197.CrossRef Gillies K, Bower P, Elliott J, MacLennan G, Newlands RSN, Ogden M, Treweek SP, Wells M, Witham MD, Young B, Francis JJ. Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol. Trials. 2018;19:197.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Brueton V, Stenning S, Stevenson S, Tierney J, Rait G. Best practice guidance for the use of strategies to improve retention in randomised trials developed from two consensus workshops. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:122–32.CrossRef Brueton V, Stenning S, Stevenson S, Tierney J, Rait G. Best practice guidance for the use of strategies to improve retention in randomised trials developed from two consensus workshops. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:122–32.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kearney A, Daykin A, Shaw AR, Lane AJ, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gamble C. Identifying research priorities for effective retention strategies in clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):406.CrossRef Kearney A, Daykin A, Shaw AR, Lane AJ, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gamble C. Identifying research priorities for effective retention strategies in clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):406.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference NIHR CRN Annual Performance Report 2014/2015. Leeds: National Institute for Health Research; 2015. NIHR CRN Annual Performance Report 2014/2015. Leeds: National Institute for Health Research; 2015.
9.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu M, Howells D, Ioannidis J, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.CrossRef Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu M, Howells D, Ioannidis J, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson P, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, Bray C, Brocklehurst P, Moloney M, Douiri A, Gamble C, Gardner H, Mitchell D, Stewart D, Jordan J, O’Donnell M, Clarke M, Pavitt S, Guegan E, Blatch-Jones A, Smith V, Reay H, Devane D. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147.CrossRef Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson P, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, Bray C, Brocklehurst P, Moloney M, Douiri A, Gamble C, Gardner H, Mitchell D, Stewart D, Jordan J, O’Donnell M, Clarke M, Pavitt S, Guegan E, Blatch-Jones A, Smith V, Reay H, Devane D. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Duley L, Uhm S, Oliver S. Top 15 UK research priorities for preterm birth. Lancet. 2014;383:2041–2.CrossRef Duley L, Uhm S, Oliver S. Top 15 UK research priorities for preterm birth. Lancet. 2014;383:2041–2.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Batchelor JM, Ridd MJ, Clarke T, Ahmed A, Cox M, Crowe S, Howard M, Lawton S, McPhee M, Rani A, Ravenscroft JC, Roberts A, Thomas KS. The Eczema Priority Setting Partnership: a collaboration between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers to identify and prioritize important research indicative questions for the treatment of eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:577–82.CrossRef Batchelor JM, Ridd MJ, Clarke T, Ahmed A, Cox M, Crowe S, Howard M, Lawton S, McPhee M, Rani A, Ravenscroft JC, Roberts A, Thomas KS. The Eczema Priority Setting Partnership: a collaboration between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers to identify and prioritize important research indicative questions for the treatment of eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:577–82.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Parry KW. Constant comparison. In: Lewis-Beck M, Bryman A, Liao T, editors. the SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2004. Parry KW. Constant comparison. In: Lewis-Beck M, Bryman A, Liao T, editors. the SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2004.
15.
go back to reference Skea Z, Newlands R, Gillies K. What influences non-retention in clinical trials? A meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e021959.CrossRef Skea Z, Newlands R, Gillies K. What influences non-retention in clinical trials? A meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e021959.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference El Feky A, Gillies K, Gardner H, Fraser C, Treweek S. A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention to randomised controlled trials. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):30.CrossRef El Feky A, Gillies K, Gardner H, Fraser C, Treweek S. A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention to randomised controlled trials. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):30.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Niedomysl T, Malmberg B. Do open-ended survey questions on migration motives create coder variability problems? Popul Space Place. 2009;15:79–87.CrossRef Niedomysl T, Malmberg B. Do open-ended survey questions on migration motives create coder variability problems? Popul Space Place. 2009;15:79–87.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Chong D, Druckman JN. Framing theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2007;10:103–26.CrossRef Chong D, Druckman JN. Framing theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2007;10:103–26.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, et al. From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006400.CrossRef Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, et al. From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006400.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Evans B, Bedson E, Bell P, et al. Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure. Trials. 2013;14:1.CrossRef Evans B, Bedson E, Bell P, et al. Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure. Trials. 2013;14:1.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Pollard K, Donskoy AL, Moule P, Donald C, Lima M, Rice C. Developing and evaluating guidelines for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(2):141–55.CrossRef Pollard K, Donskoy AL, Moule P, Donald C, Lima M, Rice C. Developing and evaluating guidelines for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(2):141–55.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Williamson P, Altman D, Bagley H, Barnes K, Blazeby J, Brookes S, et al. The Comet Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.CrossRef Williamson P, Altman D, Bagley H, Barnes K, Blazeby J, Brookes S, et al. The Comet Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study
Authors
Dan Brunsdon
Linda Biesty
Peter Brocklehurst
Valerie Brueton
Declan Devane
Jim Elliott
Sandra Galvin
Carrol Gamble
Heidi Gardner
Patricia Healy
Kerenza Hood
Joan Jordan
Doris Lanz
Beccy Maeso
Amanda Roberts
Imogen Skene
Irene Soulsby
Derek Stewart
David Torgerson
Shaun Treweek
Caroline Whiting
Sharon Wren
Andrew Worrall
Katie Gillies
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3687-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue