Recruitment of adults with moderate eczema for a randomised trial: Comparison of traditional versus modern methods.
Eczema Area Severity Index
atopic dermatitis
hydration
randomised controlled trial
social media
transepidermal water loss
Journal
The Australasian journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1440-0960
Titre abrégé: Australas J Dermatol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 0135232
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
revised:
26
07
2021
received:
13
07
2021
accepted:
07
08
2021
pubmed:
4
9
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
3
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinical trial recruitment is challenging for investigators who often overestimate the pool of qualified, willing subjects. Moreover, there is a paucity of literature, particularly in dermatology, regarding recruitment and the comparative success of advertising strategies. Both 'traditional' (physician referral, newspaper and radio advertisements, letterbox drops, posters/flyers, word-of-mouth) and 'modern' (patient recruitment services, social media, Google advertisements, websites, email) recruitment methods were used to enrol 100 patients (>18 years) diagnosed with moderate eczema for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of a topical eczema treatment over 4 weeks. The relationships between recruitment method and patient age, sex, race, study completion and costs were analysed. The majority of patients recruited were young, with millennials and Gen Z comprising 77% of the study population. Both traditional and modern recruitment methods were equally successful in recruiting younger patients, with older patients predominately recruited by traditional methods. Eighty per cent more men were recruited by traditional compared to modern methods, whilst 67% more women than men were recruited by modern methods. Recruitment method neither appeared to be influenced by race, nor did it effect whether patients completed the study. Costs per enrolment were similar for both methods. This study shows that despite the high proportion of young patients and the rising popularity of social media and increased internet use, a combination of both traditional and modern recruitment methods was required to successfully meet the trial enrolment target of 100 adult patients with moderate eczema.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clinical trial recruitment is challenging for investigators who often overestimate the pool of qualified, willing subjects. Moreover, there is a paucity of literature, particularly in dermatology, regarding recruitment and the comparative success of advertising strategies.
METHODS
METHODS
Both 'traditional' (physician referral, newspaper and radio advertisements, letterbox drops, posters/flyers, word-of-mouth) and 'modern' (patient recruitment services, social media, Google advertisements, websites, email) recruitment methods were used to enrol 100 patients (>18 years) diagnosed with moderate eczema for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of a topical eczema treatment over 4 weeks. The relationships between recruitment method and patient age, sex, race, study completion and costs were analysed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The majority of patients recruited were young, with millennials and Gen Z comprising 77% of the study population. Both traditional and modern recruitment methods were equally successful in recruiting younger patients, with older patients predominately recruited by traditional methods. Eighty per cent more men were recruited by traditional compared to modern methods, whilst 67% more women than men were recruited by modern methods. Recruitment method neither appeared to be influenced by race, nor did it effect whether patients completed the study. Costs per enrolment were similar for both methods.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that despite the high proportion of young patients and the rising popularity of social media and increased internet use, a combination of both traditional and modern recruitment methods was required to successfully meet the trial enrolment target of 100 adult patients with moderate eczema.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34477217
doi: 10.1111/ajd.13699
pmc: PMC9290647
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e510-e515Informations de copyright
© 2021 Ego Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd. Australasian Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College of Dermatologists.
Références
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013 Jan-Feb;45(1):69-76
pubmed: 23305805
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Aug 10;5(3):e161
pubmed: 27511829
Control Clin Trials. 2001 Dec;22(6 Suppl):222S-35S
pubmed: 11728626
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2017 Jan;20(1):64-67
pubmed: 27976951
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 18;20(6):e197
pubmed: 29914861
Allergy. 2018 Jun;73(6):1284-1293
pubmed: 29319189
Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jul;34(4):e14970
pubmed: 33984185
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Apr 13;(4):MR000012
pubmed: 21491415
Br Med J. 1980 Nov 15;281(6251):1336-8
pubmed: 7437789
BJOG. 2017 May;124(6):863-871
pubmed: 28194870
Clin Trials. 2015 Feb;12(1):77-83
pubmed: 25475878
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 21;18(12):e326
pubmed: 28003174
Acta Derm Venereol. 2020 Jun 9;100(12):adv00161
pubmed: 32412644
Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
pubmed: 16603070
PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar 1;15(3):e2002040
pubmed: 28249024
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(48):iii, ix-105
pubmed: 17999843
BMJ Open. 2013 Feb 07;3(2):
pubmed: 23396504
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Nov 7;18(11):e286
pubmed: 27821383
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 19;6:34
pubmed: 16854229
Digit Health. 2018 May 07;4:2055207618771757
pubmed: 29942634
Trials. 2019 Oct 30;20(1):618
pubmed: 31666093
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 26;22(10):e22810
pubmed: 33104015
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Nov 10;289(6454):1281-4
pubmed: 6437520