When free condoms and spermicide are not enough: barriers and solutions to participant recruitment to community-based trials

Mark Gabbay , Joanna Thomas
{"title":"When free condoms and spermicide are not enough: barriers and solutions to participant recruitment to community-based trials","authors":"Mark Gabbay ,&nbsp;Joanna Thomas","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2004.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While randomised controlled trials remain the accepted ‘gold standard’ in medical research, participant recruitment is often problematic, particularly with primary care trials or those requiring healthy volunteers. Such difficulties can jeopardise the trial, leading to early abandonment, reduced statistical power or timetable and budget overruns. Substantial changes in recruitment plans may reduce the generalisability of the research. In order to overcome some of the more common recruitment difficulties, it is important that researchers share their recruitment strategy successes and failures. We report our experience of recruiting healthy volunteers to a condom trial, based within primary care and community populations. This was an RCT of the effect that using an additional spermicidal lubricant has on condom failure. We originally aimed to recruit entirely from Family Planning Clinics, but eventually required a wide variety of strategies. Targeted mailings, newspaper coverage and electronic ‘posters’ were among the most successful we used to bolster clinic recruitment. Concerned at our slow recruitment rates, we conducted a questionnaire survey investigating the reasons for participation and non-participation in the research completed by 101 trial participants, 112 decliners and 90 controls (total 303). The most important reasons given for taking part included ‘considering the research to be important’ (85%), ‘wanting to help the researchers’ (70%), ‘having time to help’ (62%) and ‘getting free condoms and lubricant’ (56%). The most popular reasons for declining were ‘not wanting to use condoms’ (38%), ‘partner's unwillingness to take part’ (29%), ‘not wanting to alter usual contraceptive practice’ (27%), ‘not having time’ (21%). Contrary to expectations, embarrassment and fears about confidentiality were relatively unimportant factors in this decision. In conclusion, the key to attaining recruitment targets was the core research team taking an active part, working closely with clinic staff and maintaining tight control of the process. Altruism remains a powerful motivation for participants, supported by incentives and procedural details to minimise personal inconvenience. Even for intimate research topics, these general factors outweigh specific issues.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"25 4","pages":"Pages 388-399"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2004.06.004","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245604000480","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

While randomised controlled trials remain the accepted ‘gold standard’ in medical research, participant recruitment is often problematic, particularly with primary care trials or those requiring healthy volunteers. Such difficulties can jeopardise the trial, leading to early abandonment, reduced statistical power or timetable and budget overruns. Substantial changes in recruitment plans may reduce the generalisability of the research. In order to overcome some of the more common recruitment difficulties, it is important that researchers share their recruitment strategy successes and failures. We report our experience of recruiting healthy volunteers to a condom trial, based within primary care and community populations. This was an RCT of the effect that using an additional spermicidal lubricant has on condom failure. We originally aimed to recruit entirely from Family Planning Clinics, but eventually required a wide variety of strategies. Targeted mailings, newspaper coverage and electronic ‘posters’ were among the most successful we used to bolster clinic recruitment. Concerned at our slow recruitment rates, we conducted a questionnaire survey investigating the reasons for participation and non-participation in the research completed by 101 trial participants, 112 decliners and 90 controls (total 303). The most important reasons given for taking part included ‘considering the research to be important’ (85%), ‘wanting to help the researchers’ (70%), ‘having time to help’ (62%) and ‘getting free condoms and lubricant’ (56%). The most popular reasons for declining were ‘not wanting to use condoms’ (38%), ‘partner's unwillingness to take part’ (29%), ‘not wanting to alter usual contraceptive practice’ (27%), ‘not having time’ (21%). Contrary to expectations, embarrassment and fears about confidentiality were relatively unimportant factors in this decision. In conclusion, the key to attaining recruitment targets was the core research team taking an active part, working closely with clinic staff and maintaining tight control of the process. Altruism remains a powerful motivation for participants, supported by incentives and procedural details to minimise personal inconvenience. Even for intimate research topics, these general factors outweigh specific issues.

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
当免费避孕套和杀精剂还不够时:社区试验招募参与者的障碍和解决办法
虽然随机对照试验仍然是医学研究中公认的“黄金标准”,但参与者招募往往存在问题,特别是在初级保健试验或需要健康志愿者的试验中。这些困难可能会危及试验,导致早期放弃、统计能力下降或时间表和预算超支。招聘计划的实质性变化可能会降低研究的普遍性。为了克服一些更常见的招聘困难,研究人员分享他们的招聘策略的成功和失败是很重要的。我们报告在初级保健和社区人群中招募健康志愿者参加避孕套试验的经验。这是一个使用额外的杀精润滑剂对避孕套失效的影响的随机对照试验。我们最初的目标是完全从计划生育诊所招募,但最终需要各种各样的策略。有针对性的邮件、报纸报道和电子“海报”是我们用来促进诊所招聘的最成功的方法。考虑到我们缓慢的招募率,我们进行了一项问卷调查,调查了101名试验参与者、112名衰退者和90名对照组(共303人)参与和不参与研究的原因。受访者给出的最重要的参与理由包括“认为这项研究很重要”(85%)、“想要帮助研究人员”(70%)、“有时间帮忙”(62%)和“获得免费避孕套和润滑剂”(56%)。最常见的拒绝原因是“不想使用避孕套”(38%)、“伴侣不愿意参与”(29%)、“不想改变通常的避孕方法”(27%)、“没有时间”(21%)。与预期相反,尴尬和对保密的担忧在这一决定中相对不重要。综上所述,核心研究团队积极参与,与临床人员密切合作,严格控制招聘过程是实现招聘目标的关键。利他主义仍然是参与者的强大动机,有激励机制和程序细节支持,以尽量减少个人不便。即使是亲密的研究课题,这些一般因素也超过了具体问题。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels Geographic variability in patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in an international trial of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex
×
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