在随机对照试验中,招募SWAT干预措施对参与者留存率有影响吗?系统回顾。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-25 DOI:10.1177/17407745231206283
Catherine E Arundel, Laura Clark
{"title":"在随机对照试验中,招募SWAT干预措施对参与者留存率有影响吗?系统回顾。","authors":"Catherine E Arundel, Laura Clark","doi":"10.1177/17407745231206283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence-based methods for randomised controlled trial recruitment and retention are extremely valuable. Despite increased testing of these through studies within a trial, there remains limited high-certainty evidence for effective strategies. In addition, there has been little consideration as to whether recruitment interventions also have an impact on participant retention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials using a recruitment intervention and which also assessed the impact of this on retention at any time point. Searches were conducted through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7815 records were identified, resulting in 10 studies being included in the review. Most studies (n = 6, 60%) focussed on the information given to participants (n = 6, 60%), with two (20%) focussing on incentives, and two focussing on trial design and recruiter interventions. Due to intervention heterogeneity, none of the interventions could be meta-analysed. Only one study found any statistically significant effect of letters including a photograph (odds ratio: 5.40, 95% CI 1.12-26.15, p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assessment of the impacts of recruitment strategies, evaluated in a SWAT, on retention of participants in the host trial remains limited. Assessment of the impact of recruitment interventions on retention is recommended to minimise future research costs and waste.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"233-241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11005310/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do recruitment SWAT interventions have an impact on participant retention in randomised controlled trials? A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine E Arundel, Laura Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745231206283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence-based methods for randomised controlled trial recruitment and retention are extremely valuable. Despite increased testing of these through studies within a trial, there remains limited high-certainty evidence for effective strategies. In addition, there has been little consideration as to whether recruitment interventions also have an impact on participant retention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials using a recruitment intervention and which also assessed the impact of this on retention at any time point. Searches were conducted through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7815 records were identified, resulting in 10 studies being included in the review. Most studies (n = 6, 60%) focussed on the information given to participants (n = 6, 60%), with two (20%) focussing on incentives, and two focussing on trial design and recruiter interventions. Due to intervention heterogeneity, none of the interventions could be meta-analysed. Only one study found any statistically significant effect of letters including a photograph (odds ratio: 5.40, 95% CI 1.12-26.15, p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assessment of the impacts of recruitment strategies, evaluated in a SWAT, on retention of participants in the host trial remains limited. Assessment of the impact of recruitment interventions on retention is recommended to minimise future research costs and waste.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"233-241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11005310/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231206283\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231206283","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于证据的随机对照试验招募和保留方法非常有价值。尽管通过试验中的研究增加了对这些策略的测试,但有效策略的高确定性证据仍然有限。此外,很少考虑招聘干预措施是否也会对参与者的保留产生影响。方法:进行系统回顾。如果研究是使用招募干预的随机对照试验,并且还评估了这在任何时间点对保留率的影响,那么这些研究就符合条件。检索通过MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和北爱尔兰试验方法研究中心SWAT资料库进行。两名独立评审员对搜索结果进行了筛选,并使用试点提取表提取了符合条件的研究的数据。结果:共确定了7815条记录,导致10项研究被纳入评审。大多数研究(n = 6,60%)专注于向参与者提供的信息(n = 6,60%),其中两个(20%)侧重于激励,两个侧重于试验设计和招聘人员干预。由于干预措施的异质性,没有一项干预措施可以进行荟萃分析。只有一项研究发现,包括照片在内的信件具有统计学意义(优势比:5.40,95%CI 1.12-26.15,p = 0.04)。结论:在SWAT中评估的招募策略对宿主试验参与者保留率的影响评估仍然有限。建议评估招聘干预措施对保留的影响,以最大限度地减少未来的研究成本和浪费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Do recruitment SWAT interventions have an impact on participant retention in randomised controlled trials? A systematic review.

Background: Evidence-based methods for randomised controlled trial recruitment and retention are extremely valuable. Despite increased testing of these through studies within a trial, there remains limited high-certainty evidence for effective strategies. In addition, there has been little consideration as to whether recruitment interventions also have an impact on participant retention.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials using a recruitment intervention and which also assessed the impact of this on retention at any time point. Searches were conducted through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form.

Results: A total of 7815 records were identified, resulting in 10 studies being included in the review. Most studies (n = 6, 60%) focussed on the information given to participants (n = 6, 60%), with two (20%) focussing on incentives, and two focussing on trial design and recruiter interventions. Due to intervention heterogeneity, none of the interventions could be meta-analysed. Only one study found any statistically significant effect of letters including a photograph (odds ratio: 5.40, 95% CI 1.12-26.15, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: Assessment of the impacts of recruitment strategies, evaluated in a SWAT, on retention of participants in the host trial remains limited. Assessment of the impact of recruitment interventions on retention is recommended to minimise future research costs and waste.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
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