Lessons learned from recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers into a pilot randomized controlled trial to explore the role of Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) smoking

Abstract

BackgroundResearch is needed on what influences recruitment to smoking reduction trials, and how to increase their reach. The present study aimed to i) assess the feasibility of recruiting a disadvantaged population, ii) examine the effects of recruitment methods on participant characteristics, iii) identify resource requirements for different recruitment methods, and iv) to qualitatively assess the acceptability of recruitment. This was done as part of a pilot two-arm trial of the effectiveness of a novel behavioral support intervention focused on increasing physical activity and reducing smoking, among disadvantaged smokers not wishing to quit.MethodsSmokers were recruited through mailed invitations from three primary care practices (62 participants) and one National Health Stop Smoking Service (SSS) database (31 participants). Six other participants were recruited via a variety of other community-based approaches. Data were collected through questionnaires, field notes, work sampling, and databases. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to compare baseline characteristics of participants.ResultsWe randomized between 5.1 and 11.1% of those invited through primary care and SSS, with associated researcher time to recruit one participant varying from 18 to 157 minutes depending on time and intensity invested.Only six participants were recruited through a wide variety of other community-based approaches, with an associated researcher time of 469 minutes to recruit one participant. Targets for recruiting a disadvantaged population were met, with 91% of the sample in social classes C2 to E (NRS social grades, UK), and 41% indicating mental health problems. Those recruited from SSS were more likely to respond to an initial letter, had used cessation aids before, and had attempted to quit in the past year. Overall, initial responders were more likely to be physically active than those who were recruited via follow-up telephone calls. No other demographics or behaviour characteristics were associated with recruitment approach or intensity of effort. Qualitative feedback indicated that participants had been attracted by the prospect of support that focused on smoking reduction rather than abrupt quitting.ConclusionsMailed invitations, and follow-up, from health professionals was an effective method of recruiting disadvantaged smokers into a trial of an exercise intervention to aid smoking reduction. Recruitment via community outreach approaches was largely ineffective.Trial registrationISRCTN identifier: 13837944, registered on 6 July 2010

Using Bayes factors for testing hypotheses about intervention effectiveness in addictions research

“…Effect sizes, SEs, P –values and the main conclusions drawn by the authors were extracted from the papers for both primary and main secondary outcomes. Studies are generally only powered to detect estimated differences between experimental and control groups for the primary outcome, and thus Bayes factors may be particularly useful for secondary analyses 15, 16. Concerns have been raised previously regarding the interpretation of non‐significant findings for sensitivity analyses 15, 16.…”

Increasing boys’ and girls’ intentions to avoid teenage pregnancy: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of an interactive video drama-based intervention in post-primary schools in Northern Ireland

“…Over the years, others have reported that recruitment facilitators include engagement with the target population when developing the intervention and preparing participant information about the study; 106 a personalised and culturally sensitive approach to participants; 99,107 designing recruitment processes that are aimed towards clearly highlighting to potential participants the beneficial outcomes of taking part and addressing any barriers or perceived negative outcomes; 108 providing research and implementation support by providing a dedicated research team contact; 109 minimising the workload for participants by adapting trial processes so they are in line with usual ways of working at the site; 109 providing financial or other incentives; 29 and good communication and expressions of appreciation to site facilitators and participants. 108,109 Although some have suggested the value of using technology such as internet-based questionnaires 110 and the use of video to provide trial information [111][112][113] to improve recruitment, a recent systematic review 98 concluded that their effect is not clear.…”

Setting up a clinical trial for a novel disease: a case study of the Doxycycline for the Treatment of Nodding Syndrome Trial – challenges, enablers and lessons learned

“…A systematic review of trial site performance showed longer delays to trial sites opening in high-income countries (median time = 250 days; 188–266) [9] than in our trial. Our study was, however, multi-jurisdictional requiring different ethical approvals and one regulatory obligation [42–44].…”

“…Planning for clinical trial site initiation typically begins before protocol development with the conduct of feasibility assessments for their suitability and readiness in respective settings [9]. As part of the planning process, investigators need to consider building a qualified implementation team, assessing the local environment and complex dynamics of the target community, infrastructure needs and the potential to conduct and complete the trial within the proposed timelines.…”