Barriers to recruitment when conducting a commissioned randomised controlled trial of medication versus psychological therapy for generalised anxiety disorder: some lessons learned.
Barriers to recruitment
Generalised anxiety disorder
Medication
Psychological therapy
Randomised controlled trial
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2019
24 May 2019
Historique:
received:
21
05
2018
accepted:
27
04
2019
entrez:
26
5
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
24
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Poor recruitment is the most common reason for premature discontinuation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An RCT of medication versus psychological therapy for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) was discontinued prematurely by the UK National Institute of Health Research funders because of recruitment failure. In order to inform future research studies, this article explores the reasons for poor recruitment and aspects which could have been improved. The trial recruited participants via psychological well-being practitioners (PWPs) employed within local Improving Assess to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services at four sites in England. For this study, we initially examined the recruitment data to identify reasons why potential participants were reluctant to participate in the trial. We then investigated reasons the PWPs did not identify more potential participants. Finally, we performed retrospective analyses of a computerised clinical records system used by the IAPT services in this study. These analyses aimed to establish the number of potential participants who had not been approached about the trial as well as whether there were additional factors affecting the numbers of people who might be eligible to take part. Data were obtained for all patients assessed during the period from the date on which recruitment commenced until the closure of the trial. Three quarters of those patients identified as possibly suitable for the trial declined to take part; the great majority did so because they did not want to be randomly assigned to receive medication. Our retrospective database analyses showed that only around 12% of potentially eligible patients for the trial were identified by the PWPs at the pilot sites. The results also indicated that only 5% of those noted at entry to the IAPT services to have a score of at least 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire (a self-completed questionnaire with high sensitivity and specificity for GAD) would have been eligible for the trial. Our findings suggest that poor recruitment to RCTs can be significantly affected by participants' treatment preferences and by factors influencing the recruiting clinicians. It may also be important not to include too many restrictions on inclusion criteria for pragmatic trials aiming for generalisable results. ISCRTN14845583 . Registration date: 5 February 2015.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Poor recruitment is the most common reason for premature discontinuation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An RCT of medication versus psychological therapy for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) was discontinued prematurely by the UK National Institute of Health Research funders because of recruitment failure. In order to inform future research studies, this article explores the reasons for poor recruitment and aspects which could have been improved.
METHODS
METHODS
The trial recruited participants via psychological well-being practitioners (PWPs) employed within local Improving Assess to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services at four sites in England. For this study, we initially examined the recruitment data to identify reasons why potential participants were reluctant to participate in the trial. We then investigated reasons the PWPs did not identify more potential participants. Finally, we performed retrospective analyses of a computerised clinical records system used by the IAPT services in this study. These analyses aimed to establish the number of potential participants who had not been approached about the trial as well as whether there were additional factors affecting the numbers of people who might be eligible to take part. Data were obtained for all patients assessed during the period from the date on which recruitment commenced until the closure of the trial.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three quarters of those patients identified as possibly suitable for the trial declined to take part; the great majority did so because they did not want to be randomly assigned to receive medication. Our retrospective database analyses showed that only around 12% of potentially eligible patients for the trial were identified by the PWPs at the pilot sites. The results also indicated that only 5% of those noted at entry to the IAPT services to have a score of at least 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire (a self-completed questionnaire with high sensitivity and specificity for GAD) would have been eligible for the trial.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that poor recruitment to RCTs can be significantly affected by participants' treatment preferences and by factors influencing the recruiting clinicians. It may also be important not to include too many restrictions on inclusion criteria for pragmatic trials aiming for generalisable results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISCRTN14845583 . Registration date: 5 February 2015.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31126337
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3385-5
pii: 10.1186/s13063-019-3385-5
pmc: PMC6534845
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
284Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 13/28/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Marie Curie
ID : MCCC-FCO-11-U
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 13/28/02
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Dec;52(12):1143-56
pubmed: 10580777
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jan 1;19(1):220-30
pubmed: 11134216
Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 Suppl 1:i9-13
pubmed: 11533431
N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1359-67
pubmed: 11794168
Lancet. 2003 Mar 22;361(9362):1015-6
pubmed: 12660062
JAMA. 2004 Sep 15;292(11):1363-4
pubmed: 15355936
J R Soc Med. 1992 Feb;85(2):71-6
pubmed: 1538384
JAMA. 2005 Mar 2;293(9):1089-99
pubmed: 15741531
Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
pubmed: 16603070
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 20;24(18):2723-8
pubmed: 16782912
Lancet. 2006 Dec 16;368(9553):2156-66
pubmed: 17174708
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000021
pubmed: 17443636
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 22;357(21):2109-22
pubmed: 17984165
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(48):iii, ix-105
pubmed: 17999843
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(11):2018-28
pubmed: 19364625
Trials. 2011 Mar 15;12:78
pubmed: 21406089
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
pubmed: 22228729
BMJ Open. 2013 Feb 07;3(2):null
pubmed: 23396504
Trials. 2013 Jun 09;14:166
pubmed: 23758961
J Clin Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;74(6):595-602
pubmed: 23842011
Trials. 2014 Jan 06;15:5
pubmed: 24393291
JAMA. 2014 Mar 12;311(10):1045-51
pubmed: 24618966
Trials. 2015 Sep 28;16:432
pubmed: 26416143
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Dec;80:8-15
pubmed: 27498376
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Aug;21(45):1-138
pubmed: 28853392
Trials. 2018 Jan 8;19(1):15
pubmed: 29310685
Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Mar;152(3):352-7
pubmed: 7864259
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):640-5
pubmed: 9310565