Why do people take part in vaccine trials? A mixed methods narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To understand why individuals do or do not take part in vaccine trials, exploring the motivators and barriers to identify effective strategies to optimise recruitment in vaccine research. METHODS: Qualitative studies and quantitative surveys capturing data on reasons for trial participation/decline were included. Six databases were searched from 1996 to October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed risk of bias. Results were reported narratively and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We included 32 studies (17 qualitative; 12 quantitative; 3 mixed-methods) that covered a wide range of populations, geographical areas and disease types. Eight themes were identified 1) altruism; 2) potential for personal benefit; 3) perceived risks; 4) trust or distrust; 5) social networks; 6) stigma; 7) practical implications; 8) research vanguard. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a detailed description of how potential participants weigh up their decisions to participate in vaccine trials, which could inform the planning and implementation of studies to enhance recruitment. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinical trial researchers should consider a patient-centered approach to recruitment, tailoring promoting material and attempt to understand fears, stigma and perceived risks. In addition, recognising the importance of trust and the key role friends, communities, family, and those in supervisory positions play in decisions.

Yoga for older adults with multimorbidity (the Gentle Years Yoga Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is common in older adults and associated with high levels of illness burden and healthcare expenditure. The evidence base for how to manage older adults with multimorbidity is weak. Yoga might be a useful intervention because it has the potential to improve health-related quality of life, physical functioning, and several medical conditions. The British Wheel of Yoga's Gentle Years Yoga© (GYY) programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic medical conditions. Data from a pilot trial suggested feasibility of using GYY in this population, but its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. METHODS: This is a multi-site, individually randomised, superiority trial with an embedded process evaluation and an economic analysis of cost-effectiveness. The trial will compare an experimental strategy of offering a 12-week GYY programme against a control strategy of no offer in community-dwelling adults aged 65 or over who have multimorbidity, defined as having two or more chronic conditions from a predefined list. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L, the primary endpoint being the overall difference over 12 months. Both groups will continue to be able to access their usual care from primary, secondary, community, and social services. Participants, care providers, and yoga teachers will not be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures are primarily self-reported. The analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will demonstrate if the GYY programme is an effective, cost-effective, and viable addition to the management of older adults with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN13567538 . Registered on 18 March 2019.

A 2x2 randomised factorial SWAT of the use of a pen and small, financial incentive to improve recruitment in a randomised controlled trial of yoga for older adults with multimorbidity.

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: This was a 2x2 factorial 'study within a trial' of including a pen and/or £5 with a postal recruitment pack to improve randomisation rate (primary outcome) into the host Gentle Years Yoga trial in older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant recruited. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return data using Cox proportional hazards regression.  Results: 818 potential host trial participants included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the likelihood of being randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63-3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75-1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77-1.55). There was evidence of improved screening return rates (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45) and time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09-2.22) but not randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54-2.57) in those sent £5 (n=409) compared with those not sent £5 (n=409). No significant interaction effects between the interventions were observed. The cost per additional participant recruited was £32 for the pen and £1000 for the £5 incentive. Conclusion: Including a small, monetary incentive encouraged increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation but did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens are cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit. Further studies may be required.