4.1 Article

Effectiveness of recruitment in clinical trials: An analysis of methods used in a trial for irritable bowel syndrome patients

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 241-251

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.08.004

关键词

recruitment; randomized controlled trials; irritable bowel syndrome; acupuncture; patient-physician relationship

资金

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [R21 AT002564, 1R01 AT01414-01, 1K24 AT004095-01, R01 AT001414, R01 AT001414-01, R21 AT002564-01A1, K24 AT004095, R21 AT002564-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR001032, RR 01032] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A successful clinical trial is dependent on recruitment. Between December 2003 and February 2006, our team successfully enrolled 289 participants in a large, single-center, randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) studying the impact of the patient-doctor relationship and acupuncture on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. This paper reports on the effectiveness of standard recruitment methods such as physician referral, newspaper advertisements, fliers, audio and video media (radio and television commercials) as well as relatively new methods not previously extensively reported on such as internet ads, ads in mass-transit vehicles and movie theater previews. We also report the fraction of cost each method consumed and fraction of recruitment each method generated. Our cost per call from potential participants varied from $3-$103 and cost per enrollment participant varied from $12-$584. Using a novel metric, the efficacy index, we found that physician referrals and flyers were the most effective recruitment method in our trial. Despite some methods being more efficient than others, all methods contributed to the successful recruitment. The iterative use of the efficacy index during a recruitment campaign may be helpful to calibrate and focus on the most effective recruitment methods. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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