Site-specific factors associated with clinical trial recruitment efficiency in general practice settings: a comparative descriptive analysis.
Clinical trial
Cost
Diabetes
General practice
Recruitment efficiency
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Mar 2023
04 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
17
10
2022
accepted:
17
02
2023
entrez:
3
3
2023
pubmed:
4
3
2023
medline:
8
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recruitment of participants is crucial to the success of randomised control trials (RCTs) but can be challenging and expensive. Current research on trial efficiency is often focused at the patient-level with an emphasis on effective recruitment strategies. Less is known about selection of study sites to optimise recruitment. We examine site-level factors that are associated with patient recruitment and cost efficiency using data from an RCT conducted across 25 general practices (GP) in Victoria, Australia. Data on number of participants screened, excluded, eligible, recruited, and randomised from each study site were extracted from a clinical trial. Details regarding site characteristics, recruitment practices, and staff time commitment were collected using a three-part survey. The key outcomes assessed were recruitment efficiency (ratio of screened to randomised), average time, and cost for each participant recruited and randomised. To identify practice-level factors associated with efficient recruitment and lower cost, outcomes were dichotomised (25th percentile vs others) and each practice-level factor assessed against the outcomes to determine its association. Across 25 GP study sites, 1968 participants were screened of which 299 (15.2%) were recruited and randomised. The mean recruitment efficiency was 7.2, varying from 1.4 to 19.8 across sites. The strongest factor associated with efficiency was assigning clinical staff to identify potential participants (57.14% vs. 22.2%). The more efficient sites were smaller practices and were more likely to be rural locations and in areas of lower socioeconomic status. The average time used for recruitment was 3.7 h (SD2.4) per patient randomised. The mean cost per patient randomised was $277 (SD161), and this varied from $74 to $797 across sites. The sites identified with the 25% lowest recruitment cost (n = 7) were more experienced in research participation and had high levels of nurse and/or administrative support. Despite the small sample size, this study quantified the time and cost used to recruit patients and provides helpful indications of site-level characteristics that can help improve feasibility and efficiency of conducting RCT in GP settings. Characteristics indicative of high levels of support for research and rural practices, which often tends to be overlooked, were observed to be more efficient in recruiting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recruitment of participants is crucial to the success of randomised control trials (RCTs) but can be challenging and expensive. Current research on trial efficiency is often focused at the patient-level with an emphasis on effective recruitment strategies. Less is known about selection of study sites to optimise recruitment. We examine site-level factors that are associated with patient recruitment and cost efficiency using data from an RCT conducted across 25 general practices (GP) in Victoria, Australia.
METHODS
METHODS
Data on number of participants screened, excluded, eligible, recruited, and randomised from each study site were extracted from a clinical trial. Details regarding site characteristics, recruitment practices, and staff time commitment were collected using a three-part survey. The key outcomes assessed were recruitment efficiency (ratio of screened to randomised), average time, and cost for each participant recruited and randomised. To identify practice-level factors associated with efficient recruitment and lower cost, outcomes were dichotomised (25th percentile vs others) and each practice-level factor assessed against the outcomes to determine its association.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Across 25 GP study sites, 1968 participants were screened of which 299 (15.2%) were recruited and randomised. The mean recruitment efficiency was 7.2, varying from 1.4 to 19.8 across sites. The strongest factor associated with efficiency was assigning clinical staff to identify potential participants (57.14% vs. 22.2%). The more efficient sites were smaller practices and were more likely to be rural locations and in areas of lower socioeconomic status. The average time used for recruitment was 3.7 h (SD2.4) per patient randomised. The mean cost per patient randomised was $277 (SD161), and this varied from $74 to $797 across sites. The sites identified with the 25% lowest recruitment cost (n = 7) were more experienced in research participation and had high levels of nurse and/or administrative support.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the small sample size, this study quantified the time and cost used to recruit patients and provides helpful indications of site-level characteristics that can help improve feasibility and efficiency of conducting RCT in GP settings. Characteristics indicative of high levels of support for research and rural practices, which often tends to be overlooked, were observed to be more efficient in recruiting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36869362
doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07177-4
pii: 10.1186/s13063-023-07177-4
pmc: PMC9985191
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
164Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia
ID : APP1104241
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:1-11
pubmed: 29288136
Diabet Med. 2022 Mar;39(3):e14747
pubmed: 34806780
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 12;7(7):e014796
pubmed: 28706090
Control Clin Trials. 2002 Apr;23(2):157-71
pubmed: 11943442
BMJ Open. 2018 Jul 17;8(7):e021435
pubmed: 30018097
Fam Pract. 2007 Dec;24(6):601-3
pubmed: 17872907
Fam Pract. 2003 Feb;20(1):83-92
pubmed: 12509377
Med J Aust. 2019 Mar;210(4):168-173
pubmed: 30835844
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 19;6:34
pubmed: 16854229
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017 Jun;16(6):381-382
pubmed: 28529317
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Jan;8(1):17-26
pubmed: 31862147
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2:MR000013
pubmed: 29468635
Clin Trials. 2021 Oct;18(5):594-605
pubmed: 34041937
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Feb;67(2):169-75
pubmed: 24183609
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 11;10(6):e038863
pubmed: 32532786
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018 Mar;27(2):e12587
pubmed: 27726212
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Jan;19(1-2):227-33
pubmed: 20500260
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;(4):MR000013
pubmed: 20393971
Med J Aust. 2020 Sep;213(6):263-265.e1
pubmed: 32815176
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
pubmed: 22228729
Clin Trials. 2014 Oct;11(5):584-9
pubmed: 25055812