Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones.

Primary care research network progress in Scotland.

Many developed industrialized countries perceive considerable value in developing practice based research networks. In this paper, the development of the Scottish Primary Care Research Network (SPCRN) from 1924-2013 is described. After a false start in the early twentieth century and some local developments 10-15 years ago, the Scottish Primary Care Research Network was finally built upon existing networks of teaching and training practices centred on research active departments of general practice and primary care. This meant that a climate already favourable to research existed and several of the necessary skills were available. Long-term funding commitment to the network by the National Health Service meant that the infrastructure could be developed in the knowledge that it would be likely to become incorporated into wider Scottish and UK systems. Two-thirds of Scottish practices regularly participate in research at a rate of 50-60 studies each year, which result in a range of publications that influence clinical decisions and health policy. As the success of the network grows, greater demands are placed upon it, and the capacity of practices to continue to engage in research may be tested.

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. OBJECTIVE: To identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. RESULTS: 45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters. CONCLUSIONS: There are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to randomised controlled trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register - CMR (The Cochrane Library (online) Issue 1 2008) (searched 20 February 2008); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to date of search) (searched 06 May 2008); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to date of search) (searched 16 May 2008); ERIC, CSA (1966 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); and National Research Register (online) (Issue 3 2007) (searched 03 September 2007); C2-SPECTR (searched 09 April 2008). We also searched PubMed (25 March 2008) to retrieve "related articles" for 15 studies included in a previous version of this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. Studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention, or which evaluated incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit patients were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to describe the effects in individual trials, and assessed heterogeneity of these ratios between trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials with more than 26,604 participants. There were 24 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while three evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.18), use of opt-out, rather than opt-in, procedures for contacting potential trial participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34). However, some of these strategies have disadvantages, which may limit their widespread use. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded. The effects of many other recruitment strategies are unclear; examples include the use of video to provide trial information to potential participants and modifying the training of recruiters. Many studies looked at recruitment to hypothetical trials and it is unclear how applicable these results are to real trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trialists can increase recruitment to their trials by using the strategies shown to be effective in this review: telephone reminders; use of opt-out, rather than opt-in; procedures for contacting potential trial participants and open designs. Some strategies (e.g. open trial designs) need to be considered carefully before use because they also have disadvantages. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded.

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to randomised controlled trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register - CMR (The Cochrane Library (online) Issue 1 2008) (searched 20 February 2008); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to date of search) (searched 06 May 2008); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to date of search) (searched 16 May 2008); ERIC, CSA (1966 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); and National Research Register (online) (Issue 3 2007) (searched 03 September 2007); C2-SPECTR (searched 09 April 2008). We also searched PubMed (25 March 2008) to retrieve "related articles" for 15 studies included in a previous version of this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. Studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention, or which evaluated incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit patients were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to describe the effects in individual trials, and assessed heterogeneity of these ratios between trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials with more than 26,604 participants. There were 24 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while three evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.18), use of opt-out, rather than opt-in, procedures for contacting potential trial participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34). However, some of these strategies have disadvantages, which may limit their widespread use. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded. The effects of many other recruitment strategies are unclear; examples include the use of video to provide trial information to potential participants and modifying the training of recruiters. Many studies looked at recruitment to hypothetical trials and it is unclear how applicable these results are to real trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trialists can increase recruitment to their trials by using the strategies shown to be effective in this review: telephone reminders; use of opt-out, rather than opt-in; procedures for contacting potential trial participants and open designs. Some strategies (e.g. open trial designs) need to be considered carefully before use because they also have disadvantages. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded.

Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis).

BACKGROUND: Antiviral agents against herpes simplex virus are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but their effectiveness is uncertain. Significant morbidity can be associated with severe cases. OBJECTIVES: This review addresses the effect of antiviral therapy on Bell's palsy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (December 2008), MEDLINE (from January 1966 to December 8 2008), EMBASE (from January 1980 to December 8 2008) and LILACS (from January 1982 to December 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Twenty-three papers were selected for consideration. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials including 1987 participants met the inclusion criteria, adding five studies to the two in the previous review.Incomplete recovery at one year. There was no significant benefit in the rate of incomplete recovery from antivirals compared with placebo (n = 1886, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.18). In meta-analyses with some unexplained heterogeneity, the outcome with antivirals was significantly worse than with corticosteroids (n = 768, RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.32) and the outcome with antivirals plus corticosteroids was significantly better than with placebo (n = 658, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76).Motor synkinesis or crocodile tears at one year. In single trials, there was no significant difference in long term sequelae comparing antivirals and corticosteroids with corticosteroids alone (n = 99, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.07) or antivirals with corticosteroids (n = 101, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.07).Adverse events.There was no significant difference in rates of adverse events between antivirals and placebo (n = 1544, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.38), between antivirals and corticosteroids (n = 667, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.41) or between the antiviral-corticosteroid combination and placebo (n = 658, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.66). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High quality evidence showed no significant benefit from anti-herpes simplex antivirals compared with placebo in producing complete recovery from Bell's palsy. Moderate quality evidence showed that antivirals were significantly less likely than corticosteroids to produce complete recovery.

Recordings or summaries of consultations for people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many people find it difficult to remember information provided during medical consultations. One way of improving this may be to provide a record of the conversation. OBJECTIVES: This review examined the effects of providing recordings or summaries of their consultations to people with cancer and their families. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following sources: The Cochrane Library (issue 2 2007); MEDLINE (1966 to 29 May 2007); CINAHL (1982 to 29 May 2007); Dissertation Abstracts (1861 to 29 May 2007; Index to Theses 29 May 2007; EMBASE (1985 to 29 May 2007); PsycINFO (1967 to 29 May 2007); AMED (1985 to 29 May 2007); British Nursing Index (1985 to May 2007); SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI (1986 to 3 June 2007); and Sociological Abstracts (1998 to 29 May 2007). For the initial (1999) publication of this review we also searched the following databases: Sociofile; Cancerlit; IAC Health & Wellness; JICST; Pascal; ERIC; ASSIA; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Mental Health Abstracts; CAB Health; DHSS-Data; MANTIS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluate the effects of providing recordings (for example, audiotapes) or summaries (for example, a letter with reminders of key points) of consultations to people with cancer or their families. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed studies for inclusion. Data were extracted by one author and checked by another author. We assessed study quality on seven criteria. We used a systematic approach to data extraction to produce a descriptive summary of studies, and present a narrative synthesis of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included sixteen controlled trials involving 2318 adult participants. The studies measured diverse outcomes. Many of the participants found recordings or summaries of their consultations valuable, with between 60% and 100% of participants (across twelve studies) reading the summary or listening to the recording at least once. The recordings were used to help inform family and friends (range 41.5% to 94.4% of participants in nine studies). Five out of nine studies reported better recall of information for those receiving recordings or summaries. Three out of ten studies found that participants provided with a recording or summary were more satisfied. No studies (out of ten) found any statistically significant difference between groups in terms of anxiety or depression. Three studies evaluated the effects on quality of life, but found no main effects. No study evaluated the intervention's effects on survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The provision of recordings or summaries of key consultations may benefit most adults with cancer. Although more research is needed to improve our understanding of these interventions, most patients find them very useful. Practitioners should consider offering people recordings or written summaries of their consultations.