The financial impact of participant attrition from randomised trials: a case-study from the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS).

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1111/jep.14212
Athanasios Gkekas, Sarah Ronaldson, Adwoa Parker, David Torgerson
{"title":"The financial impact of participant attrition from randomised trials: a case-study from the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS).","authors":"Athanasios Gkekas, Sarah Ronaldson, Adwoa Parker, David Torgerson","doi":"10.1111/jep.14212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Loss to follow-up of participants can compromise the statistical validity of randomised trials. Moreover, it can have financial consequences for trial teams and funders. This study explores the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS) where, despite a withdrawal rate of less than 10%, the trial team incurred opportunity costs related to participants who were initially recruited but subsequently decided to withdraw from the trial.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To estimate the cost of participant losses to follow-up in the OTIS trial and thus introduce a costing framework to research teams on how they could estimate the opportunity costs of participant withdrawal from their randomised trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The participants lost to follow-up are differentiated by (1) the time point at which they were lost to follow-up; (2) the treatment group they were allocated to; (3) their response patters to follow-up questionnaires; these elements were considered to identify the relevant types of attrition. Protocol-driven costs of trial materials, including administration, print, and shipping, were gathered. We calculated unit costs for each type of attrition by multiplying protocol-driven and intervention costs with the relevant number of participants. Summing up unit costs by type of loss to follow-up yields aggregate figures, enabling the estimation of aggregate and average opportunity costs of attrition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average cost per participant loss to follow-up in the OTIS trial is £98.41. The aggregate cost of participant loss to follow-up is £10,234.90 from the economic perspective of the trial team. Therefore, 1.42% of the allocated funding has been misallocated because of participant loss to follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the low attrition rate of the OTIS trial, loss to follow-up has still generated considerable opportunity costs. It is recommended that decision makers focus on identifying strategies which could improve participant retention in randomised trials to optimise their budget.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14212","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Loss to follow-up of participants can compromise the statistical validity of randomised trials. Moreover, it can have financial consequences for trial teams and funders. This study explores the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS) where, despite a withdrawal rate of less than 10%, the trial team incurred opportunity costs related to participants who were initially recruited but subsequently decided to withdraw from the trial.

Aims and objectives: To estimate the cost of participant losses to follow-up in the OTIS trial and thus introduce a costing framework to research teams on how they could estimate the opportunity costs of participant withdrawal from their randomised trials.

Methods: The participants lost to follow-up are differentiated by (1) the time point at which they were lost to follow-up; (2) the treatment group they were allocated to; (3) their response patters to follow-up questionnaires; these elements were considered to identify the relevant types of attrition. Protocol-driven costs of trial materials, including administration, print, and shipping, were gathered. We calculated unit costs for each type of attrition by multiplying protocol-driven and intervention costs with the relevant number of participants. Summing up unit costs by type of loss to follow-up yields aggregate figures, enabling the estimation of aggregate and average opportunity costs of attrition.

Results: The average cost per participant loss to follow-up in the OTIS trial is £98.41. The aggregate cost of participant loss to follow-up is £10,234.90 from the economic perspective of the trial team. Therefore, 1.42% of the allocated funding has been misallocated because of participant loss to follow-up.

Conclusion: Despite the low attrition rate of the OTIS trial, loss to follow-up has still generated considerable opportunity costs. It is recommended that decision makers focus on identifying strategies which could improve participant retention in randomised trials to optimise their budget.

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
随机试验参与者流失的财务影响:职业治疗师干预研究(OTIS)案例研究。
理由随访参与者的损失会影响随机试验的统计有效性。此外,它还会给试验团队和资助者带来经济损失。本研究对职业治疗师干预研究(OTIS)进行了探讨,尽管退出率低于 10%,但试验团队仍产生了与最初招募但后来决定退出试验的参与者相关的机会成本:估算在 OTIS 试验中失去随访参与者的成本,从而为研究团队提供一个成本计算框架,帮助他们估算参与者退出随机试验的机会成本:方法:对失去随访机会的参与者进行区分:(1) 失去随访机会的时间点;(2) 他们被分配到的治疗组;(3) 他们对随访问卷的回答模式;考虑这些因素以确定相关的流失类型。我们收集了试验材料的方案驱动成本,包括管理、印刷和运输成本。我们将方案驱动成本和干预成本与相关参与者人数相乘,计算出每种流失类型的单位成本。按随访损失类型将单位成本相加得出总数字,从而估算出总的和平均的自然减员机会成本:结果:在 OTIS 试验中,每位参与者的平均后续损失成本为 98.41 英镑。从试验团队的经济角度来看,参与者流失的总成本为 10,234.90 英镑。因此,有 1.42% 的分配资金因参与者失去随访而分配不当:尽管 OTIS 试验的自然减员率很低,但随访损失仍产生了可观的机会成本。建议决策者在随机试验中重点确定可提高参与者保留率的策略,以优化预算。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
AttributeRank: An Algorithm for Attribute Ranking in Clinical Variable Selection The 6-Item Self-Efficacy Scale in Chronic Disease Management in Women With Endometriosis: A Turkish Validity and Reliability Study Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Karaduman Chewing Performance Scale for the Italian Paediatric Population Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Content Validation of the Yonsei Lifestyle Profile for Older Adults in the United States Effect of Excess Mortality on Longevity During the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Asia
×
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:481959085
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