ABSTRACT
Background: Recruitment to clinical trials is a challenge for researchers that became more pronounced because of COVID-19 public health protective measures, especially with respect to studies enrolling older adults. We completed an effectiveness and cost analysis of the recruitment methods used in The Your Answers When Needing Sleep in New Brunswick (YAWNS NB) study, a randomized controlled trial of a deprescribing intervention that recruited older adults with chronic use of sedatives during the pandemic. Methods: Study recruitment began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies included random digit dialing (RDD), a targeted mail campaign and advertising through newspapers, online platforms (Google and Facebook), and television. Other awareness raising and recruitment strategies involved seniors' organizations, pharmacies, television news stories, and referrals. Recruitment effectiveness and cost analysis involved enrollment rate (ER), cost per randomized participant (CPRP), fractional cost (FC), fractional enrollment (FE), fractional enrollment-cost ratio (FEC), and efficacy index (EI) calculations. Results: There were 1295 interested older adults with 594 randomized into the study for an enrollment rate of 46%. The efficacy index (EI) was highest for Facebook ads (EI = 0.683) followed by television (EI = 0.426), and newsprint ads (EI = 0.298). The cost of RDD was highest per randomized participant at $1117.90 and produced the lowest EI (0.013). Conclusion: Facebook ads had the best efficacy index for recruiting older adults to the YAWNS NB study during the COVID-19 pandemic and television ads produced the most enrollments. RDD was expensive and yielded few recruits. Recruitment costs can be significant for recruiting community-dwelling older adults. This experience can inform recruitment strategy and budget development for future community studies enrolling older adults, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Globally, hospital-based healthcare models targeting acute care, are not effective in addressing chronic conditions. Integrated care programmes for chronic diseases have been widely developed and implemented in Europe and North America and to a much lesser extent in the Asia-Pacific region to meet such challenges. We completed a scoping review aiming to examine the elements of programmes identified in the literature from select study countries in the Asia-Pacific, and discuss important facilitators and barriers for design and implementation. METHODS: The study design adopted a scoping review approach. Integrated care programmes in the study countries were searched in electronic databases using a developed search strategy and key words. Elements of care integration, barriers and facilitators were identified and charted following the Chronic Care Model (CCM). RESULTS: Overall the study found a total of 87 integrated care programmes for chronic diseases in all countries, with 44 in China, 21 in Singapore, 12 in India, 5 in Vietnam, 4 in the Philippines and 1 in Fiji. Financial incentives were found to play a crucial role in facilitating integrated care and ensuring the sustainability of programmes. In many cases, the performance of programmes was found not to have been adequately assessed. CONCLUSION: Integrated care is important for addressing the challenges surrounding the delivery of long-term care and there is an increasing trend of integrated care programmes for chronic diseases in the Asia-Pacific. Evaluating the performance of integrated care programmes is crucial for developing strategies for implementing future programmes and improving already existing programmes.
