Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies. METHODS: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items. RESULTS: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Implementation of a 1-Day Living Kidney Donor Evaluation Program: A Qualitative Analysis of Donor Candidate and Stakeholder Perspectives.

Introduction: A lengthy donor evaluation process hinders living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). At The Ottawa Hospital, 1-day evaluation process was recently developed, with a goal to accelerate the determination of donor suitability. The major objective of this study was to solicit feedback from donor candidates and key stakeholders who participated in the 1-day living kidney donor evaluation process, to determine the program's acceptability and factors influencing its implementation elsewhere. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with donor candidates who participated in the 1-day living kidney donor evaluation process, and with stakeholders who are instrumental to the implementation strategy. Interviews were conducted via videoconference or by telephone from May 2022 to December 2022. Directed content analysis was conducted using 2 unique frameworks for stakeholder and donor candidate interviews. Results: Our study included 13 stakeholders and 18 donor candidates, of whom 16 (89%) were women and 7 (39%) proceeded to kidney donation. Eighteen (100%) perceived the process to be both time-effective and cost-effective, due to reduced travel and missed work time. Thirteen (72%) felt that the 1-day evaluation may accelerate determination of donor suitability. Sequential virtual sessions with a nurse and social worker in advance of the evaluation day were seen as providing critical education and support. Among stakeholders, 11 (85%) emphasized donor candidate care and faster candidacy determinations. Conclusion: The 1-day evaluation process was preferred by most donor candidates, and was perceived as time-effective and cost-effective by most interviewees. An expedited, 1-day evaluation may accelerate determination of donor suitability and improve LDKT rates.