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
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

164

Subventions

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

Auteurs

Michelle Tew (M)

Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. michelle.tew@unimelb.edu.au.

Max Catchpool (M)

Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

John Furler (J)

Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Katie De La Rue (K)

Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Philip Clarke (P)

Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis (JA)

Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Kim Dalziel (K)

Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

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