Using online methods to recruit participants into mental health clinical trials: considerations and recommendations from the RE-MIND study.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2024-09-07 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08435-9
Mais Iflaifel, Charlotte L Hall, Heidi R Green, Andrew Willis, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Edmund Juszczak, Mark Townsend, Jennifer Martin, Kirsty Sprange
{"title":"Using online methods to recruit participants into mental health clinical trials: considerations and recommendations from the RE-MIND study.","authors":"Mais Iflaifel, Charlotte L Hall, Heidi R Green, Andrew Willis, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Edmund Juszczak, Mark Townsend, Jennifer Martin, Kirsty Sprange","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08435-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ensuring diversity in clinical trials can be a challenge, which may be exacerbated when recruiting vulnerable populations, such as participants with mental health illness. As recruitment continues to be the major cause of trial delays, researchers are turning to online recruitment strategies, e.g. social media, to reach a wider population and reduce recruitment time and costs. There is mixed evidence for the use of online recruitment strategies; therefore, the REcruitment in Mental health trials: broadening the 'net', opportunities for INclusivity through online methoDs (RE-MIND) study aimed to identify evidence and provide guidance for use of online strategies in recruitment to mental health trials, with a focus on whether online strategies can enhance inclusivity. This commentary, as part of the RE-MIND study, focusses on providing recommendations for recruitment strategy selection in future research with the aim to improve trial efficiency. A mixed-methods approach was employed involving three work packages: (I) an evidence review of a cohort of 97 recently published randomised controlled trials/feasibility or pilot studies in mental health to assess the impact of online versus offline recruitment; (II) a qualitative study investigating the experiences of n = 23 key stakeholders on use of an online recruitment approach in mental health clinical trials; (III) combining the results of WP1 and WP2 to produce recommendations on the use of an online recruitment strategy in mental health clinical trials. The findings from WP1 and 2 have been published elsewhere; this commentary represents the results of the third work package.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For external validity, clinical trial participants should reflect the populations that will ultimately receive the interventions being tested, if proven effective. To guide researchers on their options for inclusive recruitment strategies, we have developed a list of considerations and practical recommendations on how to maximise the use of online recruitment methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"596"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11380421/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08435-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ensuring diversity in clinical trials can be a challenge, which may be exacerbated when recruiting vulnerable populations, such as participants with mental health illness. As recruitment continues to be the major cause of trial delays, researchers are turning to online recruitment strategies, e.g. social media, to reach a wider population and reduce recruitment time and costs. There is mixed evidence for the use of online recruitment strategies; therefore, the REcruitment in Mental health trials: broadening the 'net', opportunities for INclusivity through online methoDs (RE-MIND) study aimed to identify evidence and provide guidance for use of online strategies in recruitment to mental health trials, with a focus on whether online strategies can enhance inclusivity. This commentary, as part of the RE-MIND study, focusses on providing recommendations for recruitment strategy selection in future research with the aim to improve trial efficiency. A mixed-methods approach was employed involving three work packages: (I) an evidence review of a cohort of 97 recently published randomised controlled trials/feasibility or pilot studies in mental health to assess the impact of online versus offline recruitment; (II) a qualitative study investigating the experiences of n = 23 key stakeholders on use of an online recruitment approach in mental health clinical trials; (III) combining the results of WP1 and WP2 to produce recommendations on the use of an online recruitment strategy in mental health clinical trials. The findings from WP1 and 2 have been published elsewhere; this commentary represents the results of the third work package.

Conclusion: For external validity, clinical trial participants should reflect the populations that will ultimately receive the interventions being tested, if proven effective. To guide researchers on their options for inclusive recruitment strategies, we have developed a list of considerations and practical recommendations on how to maximise the use of online recruitment methods.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用在线方法招募心理健康临床试验参与者:RE-MIND 研究的考虑因素和建议。
背景:确保临床试验的多样性是一项挑战,而在招募弱势群体(如患有精神疾病的参与者)时,这一挑战可能会更加严峻。由于招募仍是导致试验延迟的主要原因,研究人员正转向在线招募策略,如社交媒体,以接触更广泛的人群并减少招募时间和成本。使用在线招募策略的证据不一;因此,"心理健康试验中的REcruitment:拓宽'网',通过在线方法实现包容性的机会"(RE-MIND)研究旨在为心理健康试验招募中在线策略的使用找出证据并提供指导,重点关注在线策略是否能提高包容性。本评论是 RE-MIND 研究的一部分,重点是为未来研究中招募策略的选择提供建议,以提高试验效率。该研究采用了一种混合方法,包括三个工作包:(I)对最近发表的97项精神卫生随机对照试验/可行性研究或试点研究进行证据回顾,以评估在线招募与离线招募的影响;(II)开展一项定性研究,调查n = 23名主要利益相关者在精神卫生临床试验中使用在线招募方法的经验;(III)综合工作包1和工作包2的结果,提出在精神卫生临床试验中使用在线招募策略的建议。WP1和WP2的研究结果已在其他地方发表,本评论是第三个工作包的成果:为保证外部有效性,临床试验参与者应反映出最终接受试验干预措施(如果证明有效)的人群。为了指导研究人员选择包容性招募策略,我们就如何最大限度地利用在线招募方法提出了一系列注意事项和实用建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
期刊最新文献
Secondary prevention of leg cramps using compression stockings or magnesium supplements: a three-arm randomized clinical trial. Building games into multicenter clinical trial systems to boost trial engagement. AI/ML-based strategies for enhancing equity, diversity, and inclusion in randomized clinical trials. A study on the effect of blood flow restriction training on the recovery of lower limb motor function in stroke patients with hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial. A randomised waitlist-controlled trial protocol for examining the efficacy of a nature-based intervention (angling) for military veterans and emergency service personnel with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1