Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study

Authors: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Jacqueline Nuttall, Abby Bull, Louise Worswick, Mark Mullee, Robert Peveler, Stephen Falk, Neil Tape, Jeremy Hinks, Athene J. Lane, Jeremy C. Wyatt, Gareth Griffiths

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful.

Methods

A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March–June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach.

Results

Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: ‘security and transparency’; ‘inclusivity and engagement’; ‘human interaction’; ‘obstacles and risks’; and ‘potential benefits’. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants.

Conclusions

Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, et al. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(48):iii ix–105.CrossRef Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, et al. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(48):iii ix–105.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Walters SJ, dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby IB, Bortolami O, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276.CrossRef Walters SJ, dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby IB, Bortolami O, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Raftery J, Young A, Stanton L, et al. Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(11):1–166.CrossRef Raftery J, Young A, Stanton L, et al. Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(11):1–166.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gupta A, Calfas KJ, Marshall SJ, et al. Clinical trial management of participant recruitment, enrollment, engagement, and retention in the SMART study using a Marketing and Information Technology (MARKIT) model. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42(Supplement C):185–95.CrossRef Gupta A, Calfas KJ, Marshall SJ, et al. Clinical trial management of participant recruitment, enrollment, engagement, and retention in the SMART study using a Marketing and Information Technology (MARKIT) model. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42(Supplement C):185–95.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Huang GD, Bull J, Johnston McKee K, et al. Clinical trials recruitment planning: A proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;66:74–9.CrossRef Huang GD, Bull J, Johnston McKee K, et al. Clinical trials recruitment planning: A proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;66:74–9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Köpcke F, Kraus S, Scholler A, et al. Secondary use of routinely collected patient data in a clinical trial: an evaluation of the effects on patient recruitment and data acquisition. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(3):185–92.CrossRef Köpcke F, Kraus S, Scholler A, et al. Secondary use of routinely collected patient data in a clinical trial: an evaluation of the effects on patient recruitment and data acquisition. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(3):185–92.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Köpcke F, Prokosch H-U. Employing computers for the recruitment into clinical trials: a comprehensive systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(7):e161.CrossRef Köpcke F, Prokosch H-U. Employing computers for the recruitment into clinical trials: a comprehensive systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(7):e161.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Frampton G, Shepherd J, Pickett K, Griffiths G, Wyatt J. OP88 Digital Approaches For Randomized Controlled Trial Recruitment Or Retention: A Systematic Map. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(S1):22–23. Frampton G, Shepherd J, Pickett K, Griffiths G, Wyatt J. OP88 Digital Approaches For Randomized Controlled Trial Recruitment Or Retention: A Systematic Map. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(S1):22–23.
21.
go back to reference Mulder T. Health apps, their privacy policies and the GDPR. Eur J Law Technol. 2019;10(1):667. Mulder T. Health apps, their privacy policies and the GDPR. Eur J Law Technol. 2019;10(1):667.
22.
go back to reference Wyatt JC. Fifty million people use computerised self triage. BMJ. 2015;351:h3727.CrossRef Wyatt JC. Fifty million people use computerised self triage. BMJ. 2015;351:h3727.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Treweek S. Trial forge: a systematic approach to making trials more efficient. Trials. 2013;14(S1):O121.CrossRef Treweek S. Trial forge: a systematic approach to making trials more efficient. Trials. 2013;14(S1):O121.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Treweek S, Altman DG, Bower P, et al. Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform. Trials. 2015;16(1):261.CrossRef Treweek S, Altman DG, Bower P, et al. Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform. Trials. 2015;16(1):261.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, et al. Trial forge guidance 1: what is a study within a trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19(1):139.CrossRef Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, et al. Trial forge guidance 1: what is a study within a trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19(1):139.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study
Authors
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Jacqueline Nuttall
Abby Bull
Louise Worswick
Mark Mullee
Robert Peveler
Stephen Falk
Neil Tape
Jeremy Hinks
Athene J. Lane
Jeremy C. Wyatt
Gareth Griffiths
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04234-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue