非标准信息传单对急性护理患者招募的影响:嵌入式集群随机对照试验。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-08-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0327634
Carolin Höckelmann, Marcelina Roos, Wiebke Müller, Martin N Dichter, Sascha Köpke
{"title":"非标准信息传单对急性护理患者招募的影响:嵌入式集群随机对照试验。","authors":"Carolin Höckelmann, Marcelina Roos, Wiebke Müller, Martin N Dichter, Sascha Köpke","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0327634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recruiting study participants is a key component and major challenge in clinical research. Evidence shows that the design of written study information can influence recruitment success. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness and acceptability of different written study information.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of an information leaflet including an information video compared to a formal information letter in patient recruitment in acute care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial embedded in a cross-sectional study (\"Sleep Acute host study\") addressing patients' sleep in hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a stratified random sample of hospitals, we allocated selected wards either to the intervention group (information leaflet including a link to an information video) or the control group (formal information letter) using external concealed randomisation. Adult patients hospitalised for at least 48 hours were eligible for participation. Our primary endpoint was recruitment success measured by the participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study. The secondary endpoint was acceptability of the written study information. Persons involved in the analyses were blinded concerning group allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 53 wards with 498 patients were cluster-randomised, 28 wards with 262 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 25 wards with 236 patients to the control group. The participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study was 51.1% (134 of 262) for the intervention and 47.5% (112 of 236) for the control group (OR 1.186 (0.698 to 2.013), p = 0.528). There were no significant differences concerning the acceptability of the written study information between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More patients who received an information leaflet including a link to an information video participated in the host study, although the difference is not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>DRKS-ID: DRKS00029707. Registered on 30. August 2022.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 8","pages":"e0327634"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12316219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of a non-standard information leaflet on patient recruitment in acute care: Embedded cluster-randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Carolin Höckelmann, Marcelina Roos, Wiebke Müller, Martin N Dichter, Sascha Köpke\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0327634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recruiting study participants is a key component and major challenge in clinical research. Evidence shows that the design of written study information can influence recruitment success. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness and acceptability of different written study information.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of an information leaflet including an information video compared to a formal information letter in patient recruitment in acute care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial embedded in a cross-sectional study (\\\"Sleep Acute host study\\\") addressing patients' sleep in hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a stratified random sample of hospitals, we allocated selected wards either to the intervention group (information leaflet including a link to an information video) or the control group (formal information letter) using external concealed randomisation. Adult patients hospitalised for at least 48 hours were eligible for participation. Our primary endpoint was recruitment success measured by the participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study. The secondary endpoint was acceptability of the written study information. Persons involved in the analyses were blinded concerning group allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 53 wards with 498 patients were cluster-randomised, 28 wards with 262 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 25 wards with 236 patients to the control group. The participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study was 51.1% (134 of 262) for the intervention and 47.5% (112 of 236) for the control group (OR 1.186 (0.698 to 2.013), p = 0.528). There were no significant differences concerning the acceptability of the written study information between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More patients who received an information leaflet including a link to an information video participated in the host study, although the difference is not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>DRKS-ID: DRKS00029707. Registered on 30. August 2022.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 8\",\"pages\":\"e0327634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12316219/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327634\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327634","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:招募研究参与者是临床研究的关键组成部分和主要挑战。有证据表明,书面学习信息的设计可以影响招聘的成功。然而,对不同的书面学习信息的有效性和可接受性的研究缺乏。目的:我们的目的是调查的有效性和可接受性的信息传单,包括一个信息视频比较正式的信息信在患者招募在急症护理。设计:我们在一项横断面研究(“睡眠急性宿主研究”)中进行了一项分组随机对照试验,研究医院患者的睡眠问题。方法:在医院的分层随机样本中,我们使用外部隐藏随机化将选定的病房分配给干预组(包括信息视频链接的信息传单)或对照组(正式信息信)。住院至少48小时的成年患者有资格参加研究。我们的主要终点是通过急性睡眠宿主研究的参与率来衡量招募成功。次要终点是书面研究信息的可接受性。参与分析的人员在分组分配方面是盲法的。结果:整群随机抽取53个病房498例患者,其中干预组28个病房262例,对照组25个病房236例。干预组急性睡眠宿主研究参与率为51.1%(262 / 134),对照组为47.5% (236 / 112)(OR为1.186 (0.698 ~ 2.013),p = 0.528)。两组对书面研究信息的可接受性没有显著差异。结论:收到包含信息视频链接的信息传单的患者更多地参与了宿主研究,尽管差异没有统计学意义。研究注册:DRKS-ID: DRKS00029707。30号注册。2022年8月。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of a non-standard information leaflet on patient recruitment in acute care: Embedded cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Background: Recruiting study participants is a key component and major challenge in clinical research. Evidence shows that the design of written study information can influence recruitment success. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness and acceptability of different written study information.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of an information leaflet including an information video compared to a formal information letter in patient recruitment in acute care.

Design: We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial embedded in a cross-sectional study ("Sleep Acute host study") addressing patients' sleep in hospitals.

Methods: In a stratified random sample of hospitals, we allocated selected wards either to the intervention group (information leaflet including a link to an information video) or the control group (formal information letter) using external concealed randomisation. Adult patients hospitalised for at least 48 hours were eligible for participation. Our primary endpoint was recruitment success measured by the participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study. The secondary endpoint was acceptability of the written study information. Persons involved in the analyses were blinded concerning group allocation.

Results: In total, 53 wards with 498 patients were cluster-randomised, 28 wards with 262 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 25 wards with 236 patients to the control group. The participation rate in the Sleep Acute host study was 51.1% (134 of 262) for the intervention and 47.5% (112 of 236) for the control group (OR 1.186 (0.698 to 2.013), p = 0.528). There were no significant differences concerning the acceptability of the written study information between both groups.

Conclusions: More patients who received an information leaflet including a link to an information video participated in the host study, although the difference is not statistically significant.

Study registration: DRKS-ID: DRKS00029707. Registered on 30. August 2022.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信