Recruitment for exercise or physical activity interventions: a protocol for systematic review

Abstract

IntroductionRecruiting participants into research trials is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge that depends on clinical research studies. For the field of exercise and physical activity, there is an added difficulty in recruiting participants because participants must be willing to participate in an intervention that requires a significant commitment of both time and physical effort. Therefore, we have planned a systematic review to analyse how methodological factors, intervention characteristics and participant demographics impact recruitment rates in specific populations. This information will help researchers improve the design and recruitment approach in future studies.Methods and analysisA mixed methods systematic review will be performed on studies that implement physical activity interventions and present data on participant recruitment. We plan on searching the Pubmed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Online Resource for Recruitment research in Clinical Trials databases for potentially eligible articles from database inception through 10 February 2017. A standardised approach will be used to identify studies through a review of titles, abstracts and reference lists. The process for each eligible study is to determine their eligibility, extract data from eligible studies and rate each eligible study’s methodological quality. Exploratory multivariate regression models will be used to determine the effects of methodological factors, intervention characteristics and participant demographics on the recruitment variables of interest.Ethics and disseminationBecause all of the data used in this systematic review has been published, this review does not require ethical approval. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication as well as through conference presentations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017057284.

A critical review and user’s guide for conducting feasibility and pilot studies in the physical activity domain.

“…Choosing process outcome thresholds might be challenging since standards for suitable and unsuitable rates of feasibility outcomes do not always exist. A comprehensive review of recruitment rates in PA intervention studies, although registered, has yet to be published (Hoover et al, 2018). Still, some average recruitment thresholds are available in reviews of specific PA intervention types and/or populations.…”

Exercise Capacity in Very Low Birth Weight Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Given the correlation between physical activity levels and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, in addition to the possibility of reduced activity levels in adults born at VLBW, standardisation of outcome measures between studies is of vital importance. In studies evaluating maximal aerobic exercise capacity and physical activity levels, it is important to critically evaluate participant recruitment given the high risk of recruitment bias associated with exercise-based studies [ 76 ].…”

Feasibility of deploying peer coaches to mentor frontline home health aides and promote mobility among individuals recovering from a stroke: pilot test of a randomized controlled trial

“…The overly optimistic enrollment projections and slower than projected study enrollment that hampered SHARP recruitment are well-documented phenomena that have plagued many pragmatic effectiveness trials [ 59 – 69 ]. Recruitment problems in physical activity studies have been attributed to delays in screening, causing some potential participants to “time out” (e.g., exceed a designated number of weeks before study entry); the overly restrictive safety criteria that excluded potential participants who could have participated in an intervention without harm; low consent rates and difficulty finding control group participants who had not already been exposed to a comparable intervention [ 54 , 55 , 70 ]. Much has been written about improving recruitment by sending flyers and making telephone calls to clinicians and potential participants, assigning dedicated recruiters, offering participation incentives, and building trust in target communities [ 65 , 71 ].…”