A study within a trial (SWAT) of clinical trial feasibility and barriers to recruitment in the United Kingdom - the CapaCiTY programme experience.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Natasha Stevens, Shiva Taheri, Ugo Grossi, Chris Emmett, Sybil Bannister, Christine Norton, Yan Yiannakou, Charles Knowles
{"title":"A study within a trial (SWAT) of clinical trial feasibility and barriers to recruitment in the United Kingdom - the CapaCiTY programme experience.","authors":"Natasha Stevens, Shiva Taheri, Ugo Grossi, Chris Emmett, Sybil Bannister, Christine Norton, Yan Yiannakou, Charles Knowles","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02395-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The CapaCiTY programme includes three, multi-centre, randomised controlled trials aiming to develop an evidence based adult chronic constipation treatment pathway. The trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, National Health Service, aiming to recruit 808 participants from 26 March 2015 to 31 January 2019. Sites were selected based on their responses to site feasibility questionnaires (2014-2015), a common tool employed by sponsors to assess a site's recruitment potential and ability to undertake the trial protocol. Failure to recruit the planned sample jeopardises reliability of results and wastes significant time and resources. The purpose of this study was to investigate barriers to recruitment in 2017.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted site feasibility assessments with thirty-nine sites prior to trial commencement. Twenty-seven were selected to participate in the CapaCiTY programme, twelve were deemed unsuitable. We compared site contracted recruitment rates with actual recruitment rates and conducted a telephone survey and analysis from 5 July to 7 December 2017 (n = 24) to understand barriers to recruitment. Three sites declined to participate in the survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the time of survey, 15% of sites in the CapaCiTY programme were meeting recruitment targets, 85% were recruiting half or less of their target. Of these, 28% recruited no participants. The main barriers to recruitment were lack of resources, high workloads, lack of suitable participants and study design not being compatible with routine care. Despite multiple strategies employed to overcome these barriers, the trials were eventually stopped due to futility, recruiting only 34% of the programme sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Improving the reliability of site feasibility assessments could potentially save a substantial amount in failed research investments and speed up the time to delivery of new treatments. We recommend 1) investment in training researchers in conducting and completing site feasibility; 2) funders to require pilot and feasibility data in grant applications, with an emphasis on patient and public involvement in trial design; 3) conducting site feasibility assessment at the pre-award stage; 4) development of a national database of sites' previous trial recruitment performance; 5) data-driven site level assessment of recruitment potential.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN11791740; 16/07/2015, ISRCTN11093872; 11/11/2015, ISRCTN11747152; 30/09/2015.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"282"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02395-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The CapaCiTY programme includes three, multi-centre, randomised controlled trials aiming to develop an evidence based adult chronic constipation treatment pathway. The trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, National Health Service, aiming to recruit 808 participants from 26 March 2015 to 31 January 2019. Sites were selected based on their responses to site feasibility questionnaires (2014-2015), a common tool employed by sponsors to assess a site's recruitment potential and ability to undertake the trial protocol. Failure to recruit the planned sample jeopardises reliability of results and wastes significant time and resources. The purpose of this study was to investigate barriers to recruitment in 2017.

Methods: We conducted site feasibility assessments with thirty-nine sites prior to trial commencement. Twenty-seven were selected to participate in the CapaCiTY programme, twelve were deemed unsuitable. We compared site contracted recruitment rates with actual recruitment rates and conducted a telephone survey and analysis from 5 July to 7 December 2017 (n = 24) to understand barriers to recruitment. Three sites declined to participate in the survey.

Results: At the time of survey, 15% of sites in the CapaCiTY programme were meeting recruitment targets, 85% were recruiting half or less of their target. Of these, 28% recruited no participants. The main barriers to recruitment were lack of resources, high workloads, lack of suitable participants and study design not being compatible with routine care. Despite multiple strategies employed to overcome these barriers, the trials were eventually stopped due to futility, recruiting only 34% of the programme sample size.

Conclusions: Improving the reliability of site feasibility assessments could potentially save a substantial amount in failed research investments and speed up the time to delivery of new treatments. We recommend 1) investment in training researchers in conducting and completing site feasibility; 2) funders to require pilot and feasibility data in grant applications, with an emphasis on patient and public involvement in trial design; 3) conducting site feasibility assessment at the pre-award stage; 4) development of a national database of sites' previous trial recruitment performance; 5) data-driven site level assessment of recruitment potential.

Trial registration: ISRCTN11791740; 16/07/2015, ISRCTN11093872; 11/11/2015, ISRCTN11747152; 30/09/2015.

英国临床试验可行性和招募障碍的试验中研究(SWAT)--CapaCiTY 计划的经验。
背景:CapaCiTY计划包括三项多中心随机对照试验,旨在开发基于证据的成人慢性便秘治疗路径。试验在英国国民健康服务机构进行,旨在从2015年3月26日至2019年1月31日招募808名参与者。试验场地的选择基于其对试验场地可行性调查问卷(2014-2015年)的答复,这是申办者用来评估试验场地招募潜力和执行试验方案能力的常用工具。未能招募到计划样本会危及结果的可靠性,并浪费大量时间和资源。本研究旨在调查2017年招募的障碍:在试验开始前,我们对 39 个地点进行了地点可行性评估。其中 27 个被选中参与 CapaCiTY 计划,12 个被认为不适合。我们比较了站点合同招募率和实际招募率,并于 2017 年 7 月 5 日至 12 月 7 日进行了电话调查和分析(n = 24),以了解招募障碍。有三个站点拒绝参与调查:在调查时,CapaCiTY 计划中 15% 的研究点达到了招募目标,85% 的研究点招募了目标人数的一半或更少。其中 28% 未招募到任何参与者。招募的主要障碍是缺乏资源、工作量大、缺乏合适的参与者以及研究设计与日常护理不符。尽管采取了多种策略来克服这些障碍,但试验最终还是因徒劳无益而停止,只招募到了计划样本量的 34%:提高现场可行性评估的可靠性有可能节省大量失败的研究投资,并加快新疗法的推广速度。我们建议:1)投资培训研究人员开展并完成研究机构的可行性研究;2)资助者在申请资助时要求提供试验和可行性数据,并强调患者和公众参与试验设计;3)在授标前阶段开展研究机构的可行性评估;4)开发研究机构以往试验招募业绩的国家数据库;5)以数据为导向的研究机构招募潜力评估:试验注册:ISRCTN11791740;2015年7月16日,ISRCTN11093872;2015年11月11日,ISRCTN11747152;2015年9月30日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信