A systematic review of economic evaluations alongside studies within a trial (SWATs) for improving recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials

A. Gkekas, Alex Evans, Adwoa Parker, S. Ronaldson, D. Torgerson
{"title":"A systematic review of economic evaluations alongside studies within a trial (SWATs) for improving recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials","authors":"A. Gkekas, Alex Evans, Adwoa Parker, S. Ronaldson, D. Torgerson","doi":"10.1177/26320843221147838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To review the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve participant recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials. Methods All included studies from the latest Cochrane recruitment and retention reviews were considered. To identify articles published since the Cochrane reviews, electronic databases were searched until March 2021. Hand searching of conference databases and journals was also undertaken. The inclusion criteria included Studies within a Trial (SWATs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Quality assessment of papers used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 tool. The CRD guidance was used to assess the quality of economic evaluation. Random-effect meta-analyses were undertaken. The GRADE certainty of evidence was applied for each strategy, and Trial Forge Guidance 2 was used for strategies included in meta-analyses to evaluate the uncertainty of the findings. Cost-effectiveness ranks summarise the cost-effectiveness of all strategies. Results We identified 6569 records and included 29 SWATs (earliest conducted in 1999 and latest in 2021) including more than 35,800 participants. There is no strategy we would recommend trial teams and researchers adopt with complete statistical certainty. Recruitment strategies which could be cost-effective include financial incentives, trial-branded pens, telephone reminders and pre-notification leaflets. Retention strategies which could be cost-effective include vouchers and trial-branded pens. Conclusion Future SWATs should replicate existing recruitment and retention strategies, rather than evaluate novel ones. We recommend that economic evaluations be carried out alongside all future SWATs, costs and benefits be recorded transparently, and the cost-effectiveness of existing recruitment or retention strategies be evaluated.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"4 1","pages":"94 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843221147838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aim To review the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve participant recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials. Methods All included studies from the latest Cochrane recruitment and retention reviews were considered. To identify articles published since the Cochrane reviews, electronic databases were searched until March 2021. Hand searching of conference databases and journals was also undertaken. The inclusion criteria included Studies within a Trial (SWATs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Quality assessment of papers used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 tool. The CRD guidance was used to assess the quality of economic evaluation. Random-effect meta-analyses were undertaken. The GRADE certainty of evidence was applied for each strategy, and Trial Forge Guidance 2 was used for strategies included in meta-analyses to evaluate the uncertainty of the findings. Cost-effectiveness ranks summarise the cost-effectiveness of all strategies. Results We identified 6569 records and included 29 SWATs (earliest conducted in 1999 and latest in 2021) including more than 35,800 participants. There is no strategy we would recommend trial teams and researchers adopt with complete statistical certainty. Recruitment strategies which could be cost-effective include financial incentives, trial-branded pens, telephone reminders and pre-notification leaflets. Retention strategies which could be cost-effective include vouchers and trial-branded pens. Conclusion Future SWATs should replicate existing recruitment and retention strategies, rather than evaluate novel ones. We recommend that economic evaluations be carried out alongside all future SWATs, costs and benefits be recorded transparently, and the cost-effectiveness of existing recruitment or retention strategies be evaluated.
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
在随机对照试验中,对经济评估和试验内研究(swat)进行系统回顾,以改善招募和保留
目的回顾随机对照试验中改善受试者招募和保留策略的成本效益。方法纳入最新Cochrane招募和保留评价的所有研究。为了确定自Cochrane综述发表以来发表的文章,检索了电子数据库,直到2021年3月。还进行了手工检索会议数据库和期刊的工作。纳入标准包括试验中的研究(SWATs)。主要结果为增量成本-效果比(ICER)。论文质量评估使用Cochrane风险偏倚1工具。采用CRD指南评价经济评价的质量。进行随机效应荟萃分析。对每个策略应用GRADE证据确定性,并对meta分析中包含的策略使用Trial Forge Guidance 2来评估结果的不确定性。成本效益排名总结了所有战略的成本效益。我们确定了6569条记录,包括29项swat(最早于1999年进行,最晚于2021年),包括35,800多名参与者。我们不建议试验团队和研究人员采用完全具有统计学确定性的策略。具有成本效益的招聘策略包括财政奖励、试用品牌笔、电话提醒和预先通知传单。具有成本效益的留住策略包括代金券和试用品牌笔。结论未来swat应该复制现有的招募和保留策略,而不是评估新的策略。我们建议在未来所有swat行动的同时进行经济评估,透明地记录成本和收益,并评估现有招聘或保留策略的成本效益。
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
Choice of Link Functions for Generalized Linear Mixed Models in Meta-Analyses of Proportions. Disclosure of suicidal ideation in non-psychiatric clinical research: Experience using a novel suicide risk management algorithm in a multi-center smoking cessation trial Dynamic relationship among immediate release fentanyl use and cancer incidence: A multivariate time-series analysis using vector autoregressive models Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics. Editorial
×
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