Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A randomized, embedded trial of pre-notification of trial participation did not increase recruitment rates to a falls prevention trial.
Arundel, Catherine; Jefferson, Laura; Bailey, Matthew; Cockayne, Sarah; Hicks, Kate; Loughrey, Lorraine; Rodgers, Sara; Torgerson, David J.
Afiliación
  • Arundel C; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Jefferson L; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Bailey M; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Cockayne S; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Hicks K; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Loughrey L; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Rodgers S; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
  • Torgerson DJ; York Trials Unit - Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract ; 23(1): 73-78, 2017 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27320133
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To design and evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-notification leaflet about research to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS:

A methodological, two-arm, RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing cohort RCT (REFORM). Participants were randomized for the embedded trial, using a 12 ratio (intervention control) before being randomized for REFORM. Controls received a trial recruitment pack. The intervention group received an additional pre-notification leaflet 2-3 weeks before the recruitment pack. Primary and secondary analyses were conducted using relative risk, the Cox proportional hazards model and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS:

Of the 1436 intervention group participants, 73 (5.1%) were randomized into the REFORM trial compared with 126 (4.4%) of the 2878 control group participants. The associated relative risk (1.16) was not statistically significant [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.56]. Return rate was not significantly increased (relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.28) nor time to return decreased (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated the intervention may be cost-effective if the true estimate of effect was close to the upper bound of the associated 95% CI.

CONCLUSION:

Pre-notification for potential trial participants demonstrated a small difference to randomization (0.7% difference) and return rates (1.1% difference) in favour of the intervention. Results should however be interpreted with caution as CIs for these estimates cross the point of no effect. Nevertheless, this research enhances existing evidence for pre-notification to increase recruitment rates, with further development and assessment of this potentially cost-effective intervention being recommended.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Accidentes por Caídas / Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto / Comunicación / Selección de Paciente Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Eval Clin Pract Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Accidentes por Caídas / Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto / Comunicación / Selección de Paciente Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Eval Clin Pract Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido