{"title":"A randomized comparison of recruitment messages for a weight loss clinical trial targeting men working in trade and labor occupations","authors":"Melissa M. Crane, Bradley M. Appelhans","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Engaging diverse populations in clinical trials is vital to research. This study evaluated the effects of varying recruitment messages for a clinical trial.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The messages were evaluated in a randomly assigned, factorial design that tested enhanced trust (vs. standard) and participant endorsement (vs. standard) messaging.</p><p>Four postcards were developed and randomly assigned to 4000 potential participants' addresses. Except for the messages of interest, the cards were identical, and participants were directed to four identical study websites and screening forms. Outcomes include unique website visits, visit conversion rate, screening forms completed, and participants randomized into the parent study.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Study websites received 74 visits (range by message type 9 to 34). There was no significant difference by message type (p = 0.79). Online screening forms were completed by 15 participants (range by message type 0–6), representing a conversion rate of 20.3% of website visits. Seven participants were randomized into the study in response to the postcards (range by message type 0 to 3; 46.7% of screenings). Overall, 0.2% of individuals who received a postcard were randomized into the study.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite developing recruitment messages with participant input, the enhanced messages did not yield a greater response than standard messages. However, this method of evaluating recruitment messages shows promise.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 101289"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245186542400036X/pdfft?md5=5fd0263c69d99deaa0e076799e9e363c&pid=1-s2.0-S245186542400036X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245186542400036X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Engaging diverse populations in clinical trials is vital to research. This study evaluated the effects of varying recruitment messages for a clinical trial.
Methods
The messages were evaluated in a randomly assigned, factorial design that tested enhanced trust (vs. standard) and participant endorsement (vs. standard) messaging.
Four postcards were developed and randomly assigned to 4000 potential participants' addresses. Except for the messages of interest, the cards were identical, and participants were directed to four identical study websites and screening forms. Outcomes include unique website visits, visit conversion rate, screening forms completed, and participants randomized into the parent study.
Results
Study websites received 74 visits (range by message type 9 to 34). There was no significant difference by message type (p = 0.79). Online screening forms were completed by 15 participants (range by message type 0–6), representing a conversion rate of 20.3% of website visits. Seven participants were randomized into the study in response to the postcards (range by message type 0 to 3; 46.7% of screenings). Overall, 0.2% of individuals who received a postcard were randomized into the study.
Conclusion
Despite developing recruitment messages with participant input, the enhanced messages did not yield a greater response than standard messages. However, this method of evaluating recruitment messages shows promise.
期刊介绍：
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
