一项试验中的研究优先于改善临床试验中招募和保留实践的证据

C. Boxall, S. Treweek, K. Gillies
{"title":"一项试验中的研究优先于改善临床试验中招募和保留实践的证据","authors":"C. Boxall, S. Treweek, K. Gillies","doi":"10.1177/26320843221106961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Trial execution commonly relies on experience and judgement because there is a lack of evidence to inform how best to design and deliver clinical trials. Recruitment and retention are critical determinants to trial success have been persistent challenges that impact various stakeholders including funders, researchers, and the public. Studies within a trial (SWATs) are a way to discover best practices for recruitment and retention strategies, however, the current SWAT landscape has not been formally explored to date. This study aimed to (i) identify where current activity is taking place (ii) understand if SWATs are addressing PRioRiTY questions (iii) highlight gaps in the literature for future research. Methods In November 2020, registered SWATs in the SWAT repository store were extracted and categorised into ‘recruitment’, ‘retention’ or ‘other’ based on the primary outcome. Recruitment and retention SWATs were subsequently mapped against PRioRiTY 1 and 2 questions and descriptive statistics were used to present the findings. Results 125 registered SWATs were extracted from the repository. 50 and 36 SWATs reported recruitment and retention as their primary outcome, respectively. A majority of recruitment SWATs investigated what and how information should be designed and delivered to potential trial participants (n = 23, 46%) and the advantages and disadvantages of using technology during the recruitment process (n = 9, 18%). Three of the Top 10 PRioRiTY 1 questions had no SWATs mapped against them. A majority of retention SWATs focused on the best ways to encourage participants to complete trial tasks (n = 24, 67%), how incentives should be implemented (n = 10, 28%) and strategies to make participants feel valued (n = 9, 25%). Five of the Top 10 PRioRiTY 2 questions had no SWATs mapped against them. Conclusions This study identified a mismatch between registered SWAT activity and the priority questions in recruitment and retention. Trial teams should consider the PRioRiTy 1 and 2 questions for recruitment and retention, respectively, when designing a SWAT. In addition, there is a great breadth of research taking place, but replication of existing research is needed to produce confident evidence-based guidance for trialists and researchers to implement into their work.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"3 1","pages":"121 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Studies within a trial priorities to improve the evidence to inform recruitment and retention practice in clinical trials\",\"authors\":\"C. Boxall, S. Treweek, K. Gillies\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26320843221106961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Trial execution commonly relies on experience and judgement because there is a lack of evidence to inform how best to design and deliver clinical trials. Recruitment and retention are critical determinants to trial success have been persistent challenges that impact various stakeholders including funders, researchers, and the public. Studies within a trial (SWATs) are a way to discover best practices for recruitment and retention strategies, however, the current SWAT landscape has not been formally explored to date. This study aimed to (i) identify where current activity is taking place (ii) understand if SWATs are addressing PRioRiTY questions (iii) highlight gaps in the literature for future research. Methods In November 2020, registered SWATs in the SWAT repository store were extracted and categorised into ‘recruitment’, ‘retention’ or ‘other’ based on the primary outcome. Recruitment and retention SWATs were subsequently mapped against PRioRiTY 1 and 2 questions and descriptive statistics were used to present the findings. Results 125 registered SWATs were extracted from the repository. 50 and 36 SWATs reported recruitment and retention as their primary outcome, respectively. A majority of recruitment SWATs investigated what and how information should be designed and delivered to potential trial participants (n = 23, 46%) and the advantages and disadvantages of using technology during the recruitment process (n = 9, 18%). Three of the Top 10 PRioRiTY 1 questions had no SWATs mapped against them. A majority of retention SWATs focused on the best ways to encourage participants to complete trial tasks (n = 24, 67%), how incentives should be implemented (n = 10, 28%) and strategies to make participants feel valued (n = 9, 25%). Five of the Top 10 PRioRiTY 2 questions had no SWATs mapped against them. Conclusions This study identified a mismatch between registered SWAT activity and the priority questions in recruitment and retention. Trial teams should consider the PRioRiTy 1 and 2 questions for recruitment and retention, respectively, when designing a SWAT. In addition, there is a great breadth of research taking place, but replication of existing research is needed to produce confident evidence-based guidance for trialists and researchers to implement into their work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research methods in medicine & health sciences\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"121 - 126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research methods in medicine & health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843221106961\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843221106961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景试验的执行通常依赖于经验和判断,因为缺乏证据来告知如何最好地设计和交付临床试验。招募和保留是试验成功的关键决定因素,这是一个持续的挑战,影响着包括资助者、研究人员和公众在内的各种利益相关者。试验(SWAT)中的研究是发现招聘和保留策略最佳实践的一种方式,然而,目前的SWAT格局尚未得到正式探索。本研究旨在(i)确定当前活动的发生地点;(ii)了解SWAT是否在解决PRioRiTY问题;(iii)为未来的研究突出文献中的空白。方法2020年11月,提取特警队储存库中注册的特警队,并根据主要结果将其分为“招募”、“保留”或“其他”。随后,根据PRioRiTY 1和2的问题绘制招募和保留SWAT图,并使用描述性统计数据来呈现研究结果。结果从储存库中提取了125个已登记的特警队。50个和36个全部门办法分别报告招募和保留是其主要结果。大多数招募SWAT调查了应该设计什么以及如何向潜在的试验参与者提供信息(n=23,46%),以及在招募过程中使用技术的优缺点(n=9,18%)。在PRioRiTY 1排名前十的问题中,有三个没有针对它们的SWAT。大多数保留SWAT侧重于鼓励参与者完成试验任务的最佳方式(n=2467%)、应如何实施激励措施(n=1028%)以及让参与者感到有价值的策略(n=9/25%)。在PRioRiTY 2的前10个问题中,有5个没有针对它们的SWAT。结论本研究发现了注册的SWAT活动与招募和保留中的优先问题之间的不匹配。试验团队在设计特警队时,应分别考虑招募和保留的PRioRiTy 1和2问题。此外,目前正在进行广泛的研究,但需要复制现有研究,为试验人员和研究人员提供有信心的循证指导,以落实到他们的工作中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Studies within a trial priorities to improve the evidence to inform recruitment and retention practice in clinical trials
Background Trial execution commonly relies on experience and judgement because there is a lack of evidence to inform how best to design and deliver clinical trials. Recruitment and retention are critical determinants to trial success have been persistent challenges that impact various stakeholders including funders, researchers, and the public. Studies within a trial (SWATs) are a way to discover best practices for recruitment and retention strategies, however, the current SWAT landscape has not been formally explored to date. This study aimed to (i) identify where current activity is taking place (ii) understand if SWATs are addressing PRioRiTY questions (iii) highlight gaps in the literature for future research. Methods In November 2020, registered SWATs in the SWAT repository store were extracted and categorised into ‘recruitment’, ‘retention’ or ‘other’ based on the primary outcome. Recruitment and retention SWATs were subsequently mapped against PRioRiTY 1 and 2 questions and descriptive statistics were used to present the findings. Results 125 registered SWATs were extracted from the repository. 50 and 36 SWATs reported recruitment and retention as their primary outcome, respectively. A majority of recruitment SWATs investigated what and how information should be designed and delivered to potential trial participants (n = 23, 46%) and the advantages and disadvantages of using technology during the recruitment process (n = 9, 18%). Three of the Top 10 PRioRiTY 1 questions had no SWATs mapped against them. A majority of retention SWATs focused on the best ways to encourage participants to complete trial tasks (n = 24, 67%), how incentives should be implemented (n = 10, 28%) and strategies to make participants feel valued (n = 9, 25%). Five of the Top 10 PRioRiTY 2 questions had no SWATs mapped against them. Conclusions This study identified a mismatch between registered SWAT activity and the priority questions in recruitment and retention. Trial teams should consider the PRioRiTy 1 and 2 questions for recruitment and retention, respectively, when designing a SWAT. In addition, there is a great breadth of research taking place, but replication of existing research is needed to produce confident evidence-based guidance for trialists and researchers to implement into their work.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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