Participant recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials of melanoma surveillance: A scoping review

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pub Date : 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101461

Deonna M. Ackermann , Karen Bracken , Jolyn K. Hersch , Monika Janda , Robin M. Turner , Katy J.L. Bell

{"title":"Participant recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials of melanoma surveillance: A scoping review","authors":"Deonna M. Ackermann , Karen Bracken , Jolyn K. Hersch , Monika Janda , Robin M. Turner , Katy J.L. Bell","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This scoping review aims to collate and describe data on recruitment, retention, and strategies used to improve these, in randomised controlled trials of melanoma surveillance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 23, 2023. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and full-texts, and one reviewer extracted data (convenience sample (n = 5) checked by a second). Eligibility criteria included: (i) RCT design, (ii) clinical setting, (iii) participants at increased risk of melanoma, (iv) interventions for early melanoma detection, and (v) early detection outcomes or surrogates such as improved skin self-examination. We calculated summary statistics and undertook qualitative data synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From 1746 records, 21 trials (reported in 28 papers) were included. Recruitment sources included dermatology clinics, general practice sites, and hospital databases or registries. Trials reported proportions of those screened who were eligible (mean 75 %, range 24–100 %), proportions of those eligible who were randomised (mean 63 %, range 24–95 %), numbers randomised per month (mean 25 participants, range 2–74), and proportion of those randomised who completed outcome measurements (mean 85 %, range 59–100 %) for self-report questionnaires at primary timepoints). Recruitment strategies included targeted participant identification and flexible consent processes. Retention strategies included setting narrow eligibility criteria, reminders, and financial incentives. Reporting on strategies was limited and there were no reports on effectiveness. Few studies reported recruiter facing initiatives or public and patient involvement.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>More consistent and detailed reporting of recruitment and retention strategies in RCTs is needed, alongside evaluations of their effectiveness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 101461"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865425000353","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

This scoping review aims to collate and describe data on recruitment, retention, and strategies used to improve these, in randomised controlled trials of melanoma surveillance.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 23, 2023. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and full-texts, and one reviewer extracted data (convenience sample (n = 5) checked by a second). Eligibility criteria included: (i) RCT design, (ii) clinical setting, (iii) participants at increased risk of melanoma, (iv) interventions for early melanoma detection, and (v) early detection outcomes or surrogates such as improved skin self-examination. We calculated summary statistics and undertook qualitative data synthesis.

Results

From 1746 records, 21 trials (reported in 28 papers) were included. Recruitment sources included dermatology clinics, general practice sites, and hospital databases or registries. Trials reported proportions of those screened who were eligible (mean 75 %, range 24–100 %), proportions of those eligible who were randomised (mean 63 %, range 24–95 %), numbers randomised per month (mean 25 participants, range 2–74), and proportion of those randomised who completed outcome measurements (mean 85 %, range 59–100 %) for self-report questionnaires at primary timepoints). Recruitment strategies included targeted participant identification and flexible consent processes. Retention strategies included setting narrow eligibility criteria, reminders, and financial incentives. Reporting on strategies was limited and there were no reports on effectiveness. Few studies reported recruiter facing initiatives or public and patient involvement.

Discussion

More consistent and detailed reporting of recruitment and retention strategies in RCTs is needed, alongside evaluations of their effectiveness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

6.70%

发文量

146

审稿时长

20 weeks

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.