Investigating modifications to participant information materials to improve recruitment into a large randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Large randomized trials are the best method to test the efficacy and safety of treatments expected to have moderate effects. We observed a significant decline in potential participants' response to mailed invitations to participate in such trials over a 10-year period and investigated possible reasons behind this and potential modifications to the invitation process to mitigate it. METHODS: Participants who declined to participate in the HPS2-THRIVE trial were asked to give a reason. Formal focus groups were conducted to explore the reasons that potential participants might have for not participating. In addition, two embedded randomized comparisons around the timing of provision of the full participant information leaflet (PIL) and its style were conducted during recruitment into this large randomized trial. HPS2-THRIVE is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00461630). RESULTS: The commonest reason given for declining invitations related to mobility and transportation (despite the offer of travel expenses). Both the focus groups and potential participants who declined their invitation indicated concern about side-effects of the treatment (as presented in the PIL) as a reason for declining the invitation. Neither delaying provision of the full PIL until the potential participant attended the trial clinic, nor modifying the style of the PIL improved the proportion of potential participants entering the trial: odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.17) and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94-1.28), respectively. However, modifying the style of the PIL did increase the proportion of participants attending screening appointments (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Many reasons given for not participating in trials are not tractable to individual trials. However, modification of the PIL does show potential to modestly improve participation. If further trials could identify similar simple interventions that were beneficial, their net effects could substantially improve trial participation and facilitate recruitment into large trials.

From a social issue to policy: Social work's advocacy for the rights of donor conceived people to genetic origins information in the United Kingdom.

This paper outlines a 22 year campaign to introduce openness into the arena of donor conception in the UK. It identifies key aspects of the development of an advocacy based approach to such work and argues that social work values and principles can prove key to identifying structural inequalities which are not necessarily based in socio-economic disadvantage. Donor conceived people may find themselves in families which enjoy material privilege but whose exposure to a legislative framework and dominant professional cultures within the treatment centres encourages secrecy around genetic origins. Social workers' experience of adoption and family work leads them to recognise the danger of such secrets within families. Turning such social issues into policy changes requires vision, strategic long term advocacy and partnership with those directly affected.