Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design.


Journal

Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 Nov 2019
Historique:
received: 05 10 2018
accepted: 09 09 2019
entrez: 11 11 2019
pubmed: 11 11 2019
medline: 6 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Recruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to 'map' the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future. The scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives. The issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base. Our findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Recruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to 'map' the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future.
METHODS METHODS
The scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives.
RESULTS RESULTS
The issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31706324
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3710-z
pii: 10.1186/s13063-019-3710-z
pmc: PMC6842495
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

624

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025635/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0901530
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0800792
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L004933/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L004933/2
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Sociol Health Illn. 2009 Mar;31(2):229-45
pubmed: 18983422
JAMA. 2007 Nov 28;298(20):2415-7
pubmed: 18042920
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 20;7(3):e015276
pubmed: 28320800
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 18;(5):CD004307
pubmed: 25983287
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:21-34
pubmed: 16053581
Health Econ. 1998 Nov;7(7):569-79
pubmed: 9845251
Arch Intern Med. 2004 Apr 12;164(7):801-3
pubmed: 15078651
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 03;(9):CD007952
pubmed: 26333525
Clin Trials. 2018 Dec;15(6):533-542
pubmed: 30165760
Cogn Psychol. 1999 Feb;38(1):79-109
pubmed: 10090799
IRB. 1981 May;3(5):1-6
pubmed: 11649367
Trials. 2014 Oct 25;15:407
pubmed: 25344684
Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Oct;46(10):1386-400
pubmed: 19328488
BMJ. 2008 Feb 9;336(7639):306-8
pubmed: 18258966
JAMA. 2003 Sep 3;290(9):1183-9
pubmed: 12953001
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Aug 23;10:247
pubmed: 20731816
Am J Manag Care. 2010 Jul;16(7):497-503
pubmed: 20645665
Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Dec;13(6):755-67
pubmed: 21660562
Health Econ. 2011 Feb;20(2):225-38
pubmed: 20104571
Prev Med. 2015 Jun;75:75-85
pubmed: 25843244
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000021
pubmed: 17443636
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374(16):1543-51
pubmed: 26910198
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Apr;12(10):1-128, iii
pubmed: 18405468
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Obes Rev. 2008 Jul;9(4):355-67
pubmed: 17956546
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Nov;67(11):1210-21
pubmed: 25216899
Trials. 2013 Jan 12;14:15
pubmed: 23311722
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 11;9(3):e90347
pubmed: 24618584
Health Policy. 2013 May;110(2-3):115-30
pubmed: 23380190
Trials. 2014 Oct 16;15:399
pubmed: 25322807
Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:357-71
pubmed: 19296779
J Health Econ. 2001 Nov;20(6):1077-88
pubmed: 11758049
JAMA. 2015 Nov 10;314(18):1926-35
pubmed: 26547464
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449
Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
pubmed: 16603070
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2:MR000013
pubmed: 29468635
Trials. 2013 Jun 09;14:166
pubmed: 23758961
Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 May-Jun;23(3):112-8
pubmed: 15160809
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 06;14:76
pubmed: 24906492
J Healthc Manag. 2007 Jan-Feb;52(1):10-8; discussion 18-9
pubmed: 17288114
Trials. 2015 Mar 07;16:80
pubmed: 25888477
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Dec;52(12):1143-56
pubmed: 10580777
Health Policy. 2016 Oct;120(10):1141-1150
pubmed: 27640342
BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 04;4(2):e003821
pubmed: 24496696
J Med Ethics. 2004 Jun;30(3):293-8
pubmed: 15173366

Auteurs

Beth Parkinson (B)

Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Rachel Meacock (R)

Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Matt Sutton (M)

Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Eleonora Fichera (E)

Department of Economics, University of Bath, Bath, UK.

Nicola Mills (N)

MRC ConDuCT-II Hub, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Gillian W Shorter (GW)

Institute of Mental Health Sciences, School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.

Shaun Treweek (S)

Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Nicola L Harman (NL)

MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Rebecca C H Brown (RCH)

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Katie Gillies (K)

Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Peter Bower (P)

MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. peter.bower@manchester.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH