4.4 Article

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

期刊

TRIALS
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6

关键词

Recruitment; Randomised controlled trials; Screening; Screening logs; Eligibility assessment; Non-participation; CONSORT statement

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC) ConDuCT-II Hub [MR/K025643/1]
  2. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
  3. NIHR Senior Investigator award
  4. NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR UCLH BRC)
  5. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre based at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford
  6. NIHR RCF [AC12/026]
  7. By-Band-Sleeve: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme [HTA 09/127/53]
  8. Chemorad: NIHR Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme [PB-PG-0807-14131]
  9. CSAW Arthritis Research UK [19707]
  10. Optima prelim: NIHR HTA [HTA 10/34/01]
  11. PART: NIHR HTA [12/35/54]
  12. POUT: Cancer Research UK [CRUK/11/027]
  13. ROMIO: NIHR HTA Programme [HTA 10/50/65]
  14. NIHR
  15. Arthritis Research UK
  16. Cancer Research UK
  17. MRC
  18. MRC [MR/K025643/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  19. Cancer Research UK [13324, 15955] Funding Source: researchfish
  20. Medical Research Council [MR/K025643/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  21. National Institute for Health Research [PB-PG-0807-14131, NF-SI-0512-10119, 10/34/01, 10/50/65, NF-SI-0513-10121] Funding Source: researchfish
  22. Versus Arthritis [19707] Funding Source: researchfish
  23. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [HTA/10/50/65, HTA/10/34/01, PB-PG-0807-14131, HTA/09/127/53] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Research has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment. Methods: Eight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs. Results: The eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR - Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received. Conclusions: The SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据