2017
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1909-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reasons for non-recruitment of eligible patients to a randomised controlled trial of secondary prevention after intracerebral haemorrhage: observational study

Abstract: BackgroundRecruitment to randomised prevention trials is challenging, not least for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) associated with antithrombotic drug use. We investigated reasons for not recruiting apparently eligible patients at hospital sites that keep screening logs in the ongoing REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART), which seeks to determine whether to start antiplatelet drugs after ICH.MethodBy the end of May 2015, 158 participants had been recruited at 108 active sites in RESTART.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
1
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

5
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
12
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…20 participants also enrolled in RESTART after they enrolled in the Tranexamic acid for hyperacute primary IntraCerebral Haemorrhage (TICH-2) trial. Although the planned period of recruitment was extended by 1 year (until May 31, 2018), we did not achieve the planned sample size after a time-limited extension agreed by the funder, because only one in 12 eligible patients was recruited; 25 therefore, we increased the duration of follow-up by 1 year to accrue the planned numbers of person-years of follow-up and primary outcome events.
Figure 1Trial profile
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20 participants also enrolled in RESTART after they enrolled in the Tranexamic acid for hyperacute primary IntraCerebral Haemorrhage (TICH-2) trial. Although the planned period of recruitment was extended by 1 year (until May 31, 2018), we did not achieve the planned sample size after a time-limited extension agreed by the funder, because only one in 12 eligible patients was recruited; 25 therefore, we increased the duration of follow-up by 1 year to accrue the planned numbers of person-years of follow-up and primary outcome events.
Figure 1Trial profile
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since RESTART began in 2013, recruitment has been challenging. We have learned that one in 12 eligible patients is actually randomised, mostly because morbidity and mortality after ICH and physician certainty are impediments to recruitment [ 10 ]. We have tried to boost recruitment with a variety of promotional activities, including: patient-orientated information on our website ( http://www.restarttrial.org/patient.html ), monthly collaborator newsletters, annual collaborator meetings, a complex recruitment intervention which has been rolled out to all sites after the PRIME SWAT was completed [ 11 ], and one-to-one engagement with site investigators by the chief investigator by telephone and in person.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the time of writing, RESTART collaborators are based at 122 hospital sites in the National Health Service in the United Kingdom (see the ‘Acknowledgements’ section below for a list of these sites and collaborators). In view of slow recruitment [ 10 ], we conducted the Promoting Recruitment using Information Management Efficiently (PRIME) stepped-wedge, cluster randomised study within a trial (SWAT) at 72 sites to determine whether a complex intervention could boost recruitment [ 11 , 12 ]. One hundred and four sites are recruiting participants to the sub-study, which involves the conduct of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before randomisation according to the MRI sequences and parameters specified by an imaging protocol ( www.restarttrial.org/documents/RESTART_MRI_protocol.pdf ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We did not ask collaborators at participating sites to record every patient they screened for eligibility, although some sites' standard practice was to do this anyway, which enabled us to investigate reasons for non-recruitment of eligible patients at these sites [22]. We asked collaborators to report and record every patient for whom written informed consent was obtained, so we will report the numbers of patients with consent who were either randomised or not randomised (with reasons).…”
Section: Trial Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%