Developing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework-a tool to help trialists design trials that better reflect the communities they serve.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring that a trial is designed so that its participants reflect those who might benefit from the results, or be spared harms, is key to the potential benefits of the trial reaching all they should. This paper describes the process, facilitated by Trial Forge, that was used between July 2019 and October 2020 to develop the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework, part of the wider INCLUDE initiative from the National Institute for Health Research to improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research studies. METHODS: Development of the Framework was done in seven phases: (1) outline, (2) initial draft, (3) stakeholder meeting, (4) modify draft, (5) Stakeholder feedback, (6) applying the Framework and (7) packaging. Phases 2 and 3 were face-to-face meetings. Consultation with stakeholders was iterative, especially phases 4 to 6. Movement to the next phase was done once all or most stakeholders were comfortable with the results of the current phase. When there was a version of the Framework that could be considered final, the Framework was applied to six trials to create a set of examples (phase 6). Finally, the Framework, guidance and examples were packaged ready for dissemination (phase 7). RESULTS: A total of 40 people from stakeholder groups including patient and public partners, clinicians, funders, academics working with various ethnic groups, trial managers and methodologists contributed to the seven phases of development. The Framework comprises two parts. The first part is a list of four key questions: 1. Who should my trial apply to? 2. Are the groups identified likely to respond in different ways? 3. Will my study intervention make it harder for some groups to engage? 4. Will the way I have designed the study make it harder for some groups to engage? The second part is a set of worksheets to help trial teams address these questions. The Framework can be used for any stage of trial, for a healthcare intervention in any disease area. The Framework was launched on 1st October 2020 and is available open access at the Trial Forge website: https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/include/ . CONCLUSION: Thinking about the number of people in our trials is not enough: we need to start thinking more carefully about who our participants are.

A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials.

Background: Recruitment to trials can be challenging. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial recruitment interventions are rejected due to poor methodological quality, but systematic assessment of this substantial body of work may inform trialists' decision-making about recruitment methods. Our objective was to quantify the effects of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised trials evaluated using non-randomised study designs. Methods: We searched relevant databases for non-randomised studies that included two or more interventions evaluating recruitment to trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for eligible studies, then extracted data on: recruitment intervention, setting, participant characteristics, number of participants in intervention and comparator groups. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was the number of recruits to a trial. Results: We identified 92 studies for inclusion; 90 studies aimed to improve the recruitment of participants, one aimed to improve the recruitment of GP practices, and one aimed to improve recruitment of GPs. Of the 92 included studies, 20 were at high risk of bias due to confounding; the remaining 72 were at high risk of bias due to confounding and at least one other category of the ROBINS-I tool. The 20 studies at least risk of bias were synthesised narratively based on seven broad categories; Face to face recruitment initiatives, postal invitations and responses, language adaptations, randomisation methods, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruitee, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruiter, and use of networks and databases. The utility of included studies is substantially limited due to small sample sizes, inadequate reporting, and a lack of coordination around deciding what to evaluate and how. Conclusions: Careful thought around planning, conduct, and reporting of non-randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions is required to prevent future non-randomised studies contributing to research waste. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016037718.

Using evidence when planning for trial recruitment: An international perspective from time-poor trialists.

INTRODUCTION: Recruiting participants to trials is challenging. To date, research has focussed on improving recruitment once the trial is underway, rather than planning strategies to support it, e.g. developing trial information leaflets together with people like those to be recruited. We explored whether people involved with participant recruitment have explicit planning strategies; if so, how these are developed, and if not, what prevents effective planning. METHODS: Design: Individual qualitative semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a Framework approach, and themes linked through comparison of data within and across stakeholder groups. Participants: 23 international trialists (UK, Canada, South Africa, Italy, the Netherlands); 11 self-identifying as 'Designers'; those who design recruitment methods, and 12 self-identifying as 'Recruiters'; those who recruit participants. Interviewees' had recruitment experience spanning diverse interventions and clinical areas. Setting: Primary, secondary and tertiary-care sites involved in trials, academic institutions, and contract research organisations supporting pharmaceutical companies. RESULTS: To varying degrees, respondents had prospective strategies for recruitment. These were seldom based on rigorous evidence. When describing their recruitment planning experiences, interviewees identified a range of influences that they believe impacted success: The timing of recruitment strategy development relative to the trial start date, and who is responsible for recruitment planning.The methods used to develop trialists' recruitment strategy design and implementation skills, and when these skills are gained (i.e. before the trial or throughout).The perceived barriers and facilitators to successful recruitment planning; and how trialists modify practice when recruitment is poor. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents from all countries considered limited time and disproportionate approvals processes as major challenges to recruitment planning. Poor planning is a mistake that trialists live with throughout the trial. The experiences of our participants suggest that effective recruitment requires strategies to increase the time for trial planning, as well as access to easily implementable evidence-based strategies.

Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. METHODS: This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. RESULTS: A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?" The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . CONCLUSION: The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials guard against selection bias and therefore offer the fairest way of evaluating healthcare interventions such as medicinal products, devices and services. Recruitment to trials can be extremely difficult, and poor recruitment can lead to extensions to both time and budget and may result in an underpowered study which does not satisfactorily answer the original research question. In the worst cases, a trial may be abandoned, causing huge waste. The evidence to support the choice of recruitment interventions is currently weak. Non-randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions are currently rejected on grounds of poor methodological quality, but systematic evaluation and assessment of this substantial body of work (using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) where possible) may provide useful information to support and inform the recruitment decisions of trialists and the research priorities of methodology researchers. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for relevant studies: Cochrane Methodology Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Any non-randomised study that includes a comparison of two or more interventions to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials will be included. We will not apply any restrictions on publication date, language or journal. The primary outcome will be the number of individuals or centres recruited into a randomised controlled trial. The secondary outcome will be cost per recruit. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts for eligible studies, and then, full texts of potentially relevant records will be reviewed. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomised studies, and the GRADE system will be used if studies are pooled. DISCUSSION: This review aims to summarise the evidence on methods used to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Carrying out a systematic review including only data from non-randomised studies is a novel approach, and one which some may argue is futile. However, we believe that the systematic evaluation of what is likely to be a substantial amount of research activity is necessary, worthwhile, and will yield valuable results for the clinical trials community regardless of whether the outcomes find in favour of one or more interventions. Should the results of this review suggest that non-randomised evaluations do have something to offer trialists planning their recruitment strategies, the review may be combined in the future with the Cochrane review of randomised evaluations to produce a full review of recruitment strategies encompassing both randomised and non-randomised evaluation methods. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016037718.