Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made. METHODS: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations. RESULTS: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates. DISCUSSION: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Widening participation - recruitment methods in mental health randomised controlled trials: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Barriers to mental health research participation are well documented including distrust of services and research; and stigma surrounding mental health. They can contribute to a lack of diversity amongst participants in mental health research, which threatens the generalisability of knowledge. Given the recent widespread use of the internet in medical research, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of key partners on the use of online (e.g. social media) and offline (e.g. in-person) recruitment as an approach to improving diversity in mental health randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Face-to-face and online interviews/focus groups with researchers working in mental health and Patient and Public Involvement partners in the United Kingdom. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three focus groups and three interviews were conducted with a total N = 23 participants. Four overarching themes were identified: (1) recruitment reach; (2) Demographic factors that affect selection of recruitment method; (3) safety of technology, and; (4) practical challenges. Five main factors were identified that affect the choice of recruitment method: age, complexity of mental health problem and stigma, cultural and ethnicity differences and digital divide. The use of online methods was considered more accessible to people who may feel stigmatised by their mental health condition and with a benefit of reaching a wider population. However, a common view amongst participants was that online methods require closer data monitoring for quality of responders, are not fully secure and less trustworthy compared to offline methods that enable participants to build relationships with health providers. Funding, staff time and experience, organisational support, and technical issues such as spam or phishing emails were highlighted as practical challenges facing online recruitment. All participants agreed that using a hybrid approach tailored to the population under study is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the importance of offering a flexible and multifaceted recruitment approach by integrating online with offline methods to support inclusivity and widening participation in mental health research. The findings will be used to develop considerations for researchers designing RCTs to improve recruitment in mental health research.

A protocol for a systematic review of randomised evaluations of strategies to improve recruitment of rural participants to randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: People living rurally face health inequities fuelled by social exclusion, access to and awareness of health services, and poor transport links. In order to improve the acceptability, accessibility and applicability of health and care interventions, it is important that clinical trial participant populations include people living rurally. Identifying strategies that improve recruitment of rural participants to trials will support trialists, reduce research waste and contribute to alleviating health inequalities experienced by rural patients. The objective of the review is to quantify the effects of randomised evaluations of strategies to recruit rural participants to randomised controlled trials. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for relevant studies: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science All, EBSCO CINAHL, Proquest, ERIC, IngentaConnect, Web of Science SSCI and AHCI, and Scopus. Any randomised evaluation of a recruitment intervention aiming to improve recruitment of rural participants to a randomised trial will be included. We will not apply any restriction on publication date, language or journal. The primary, and only, outcome of our review will be the proportion of participants recruited to a randomised controlled trial. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and titles for eligible studies, and then full texts of relevant records will be reviewed by the same two reviewers. Where disagreements cannot be resolved through discussion, a third reviewer will adjudicate. RESULTS: We will assess the methodological quality of individual studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the GRADE approach will be applied to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. CONCLUSION: This systematic review will quantify the effects of randomised evaluations of strategies to recruit rural participants to trials. Our findings will contribute to the evidence base to support trial teams to recruit a participant population that represents society as a whole, informing future research and playing a part to alleviate health inequalities between rural and urban populations.