Strategies to improve recruitment in mental health clinical trials: a scoping review (RE-MIND study).

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08665-x
Mais Iflaifel, Charlotte L Hall, Heidi R Green, Andrew Willis, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Edmund Juszczak, Mark Townsend, Jennifer Martin, Kirsty Sprange
{"title":"Strategies to improve recruitment in mental health clinical trials: a scoping review (RE-MIND study).","authors":"Mais Iflaifel, Charlotte L Hall, Heidi R Green, Andrew Willis, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Edmund Juszczak, Mark Townsend, Jennifer Martin, Kirsty Sprange","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08665-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lower-than-expected recruitment continues to be one of the major causes of trial delays, and trials to improve mental health are no exception. Indeed, recruitment challenges in trials of vulnerable populations, such as those living with mental health illness, can even be exacerbated. To address this, researchers are turning to digital and online recruitment strategies, e.g. web-based approaches and multi-media in order to (1) increase recruitment efficiency (recruit to target and on time) and (2) improve diversity in mental health clinical trials to be more inclusive and reduce health inequity. There is, however, inconclusive evidence on the success of digital and online recruitment strategies in mental health clinical trials. The RE-MIND study comprised a scoping review to assess the impact of using such recruitment strategies in mental health clinical trials to inform a more systematic scoping review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort of 191 recently published RCTs and randomised feasibility studies were identified from the NIHR Journals Library and top two mental health journals (based on citation metrics), Lancet Psychiatry and JAMA Psychiatry. Population characteristics including gender, ethnicity and age were summarised for inclusivity using descriptive statistics, and recruitment strategies were compared to examine differences in their success in recruiting to target.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, 97 articles were included for review. The review findings showed no evidence that offline or mixed strategies were superior for achieving recruitment targets in mental health trials. However, there was a suggestion that trials using a mixed recruitment strategy improved inclusivity and tended to recruit closer to the target.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The key finding was that consideration should be given to a mixed methods approach to recruitment not only to enable wider and more diverse participation in mental health trials but also to realize greater efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"832"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11654402/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08665-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lower-than-expected recruitment continues to be one of the major causes of trial delays, and trials to improve mental health are no exception. Indeed, recruitment challenges in trials of vulnerable populations, such as those living with mental health illness, can even be exacerbated. To address this, researchers are turning to digital and online recruitment strategies, e.g. web-based approaches and multi-media in order to (1) increase recruitment efficiency (recruit to target and on time) and (2) improve diversity in mental health clinical trials to be more inclusive and reduce health inequity. There is, however, inconclusive evidence on the success of digital and online recruitment strategies in mental health clinical trials. The RE-MIND study comprised a scoping review to assess the impact of using such recruitment strategies in mental health clinical trials to inform a more systematic scoping review.

Methods: A cohort of 191 recently published RCTs and randomised feasibility studies were identified from the NIHR Journals Library and top two mental health journals (based on citation metrics), Lancet Psychiatry and JAMA Psychiatry. Population characteristics including gender, ethnicity and age were summarised for inclusivity using descriptive statistics, and recruitment strategies were compared to examine differences in their success in recruiting to target.

Results: After screening, 97 articles were included for review. The review findings showed no evidence that offline or mixed strategies were superior for achieving recruitment targets in mental health trials. However, there was a suggestion that trials using a mixed recruitment strategy improved inclusivity and tended to recruit closer to the target.

Conclusions: The key finding was that consideration should be given to a mixed methods approach to recruitment not only to enable wider and more diverse participation in mental health trials but also to realize greater efficiency.

改善心理健康临床试验招募的策略:一项范围审查(RE-MIND研究)。
背景:低于预期的招聘仍然是导致试验延迟的主要原因之一,改善心理健康的试验也不例外。事实上,在弱势群体(如患有精神疾病的人)的试验中,招募人员的挑战甚至可能加剧。为了解决这一问题,研究人员正在转向数字和在线招聘策略,例如基于网络的方法和多媒体,以(1)提高招聘效率(按目标和准时招聘)和(2)改善心理健康临床试验的多样性,使其更具包容性并减少健康不平等。然而,关于数字和在线招聘策略在心理健康临床试验中的成功,尚无确凿的证据。RE-MIND研究包括一项范围审查,以评估在精神卫生临床试验中使用这种招募策略的影响,为更系统的范围审查提供信息。方法:从美国国家卫生研究院期刊库和两大精神卫生期刊《柳叶刀精神病学》和《美国医学会精神病学》(基于引用指标)中选取了191项近期发表的随机对照试验和随机可行性研究。使用描述性统计总结了包括性别、种族和年龄在内的人口特征,以实现包容性,并比较了招聘策略,以检查他们在招聘目标成功方面的差异。结果:经筛选,纳入文献97篇。回顾结果显示,没有证据表明线下或混合策略在实现心理健康试验的招聘目标方面更优越。然而,有一种建议是,使用混合招聘策略的试验提高了包容性,并倾向于在更接近目标的地方招聘。结论:关键发现是应考虑采用混合方法进行招募,不仅可以使更广泛和更多样化的参与精神卫生试验,而且可以实现更高的效率。
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
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
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