Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.