Telephone reminders are effective in recruiting nonresponding patients to randomized controlled trials

Nystuen, Pål; Hagen, Kåre Birger

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.015

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The methods used to enhance recruitment were the addition of: a questionnaire that focused on the health problem studied (Kendrick [32]); a personal letter inviting participation (Kiernan and Tworoger [33],[34]); use of bulk mailing or first class stamps (Tworoger [34]); an advanced postcard alerting recipients to look for the recruitment packet (Valanis [35]); a reminder phone call for nonresponders of mailed recruitment material (Nystuen [36]); and increasingly intensive interventions (for African Americans), which included a follow-up eligibility-screening phone call, an enhanced recruitment letter featuring a prominent African American man, recruitment by an African American member of the research team, and involvement of church-based project sessions (Ford [37]). Kendrick's addition of the questionnaire that focused on the health problem studied (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14–1.66) [32] was the only mailing strategy that increased the consent rate compared with standard mailing of recruitment material.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two trials (on returning sick-listed people to work 49 and activity in older people 31 ) found that using telephone reminders to follow-up written invitations improved recruitment (OR 1.95 95% CI 1.04 to 3.66; figure 7), although there was moderate heterogeneity related to the magnitude of effect (I 2 =59%). In the third study, a series of SMS messages containing quotes from existing recruits were texted to potential participants of a smoking cessation trial.…”

Section: Telephone Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.ObjectiveTo identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied.Study selectionRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility.Results45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters.ConclusionsThere are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.

show abstract

“…One innovation that might be expected to have a large impact involved CRN staff calling patients, 78 where there is a reasonable evidence base already, including a study testing this approach using employees on a sick list. 79 However, such methods are not available to university research staff because of governance issues. These methods are also resource intensive and were offered in only one setting (as that is where the study had CRN support) because of poor recruitment.…”

Section: Recruitment Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative case management to aid return to work after long-term sickness absence: a pilot randomised controlled trial

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite high levels of employment among working-age adults in the UK, there is still a significant minority who are off work with ill health at any one time (so-called ‘sickness absence’). Long-term sickness absence results in significant costs to the individual, to the employer and to wider society.ObjectiveThe overall objective of the intervention was to improve employee well-being with a view to aiding return to work. To meet this aim, a collaborative case management intervention was adapted to the needs of UK employees who were entering or experiencing long-term sickness absence.DesignA pilot randomised controlled trial, using permuted block randomisation. Recruitment of patients with long-term conditions in settings such as primary care was achieved by screening of routine records, followed by mass mailing of invitations to participants. However, the proportion of patients responding to such invitations can be low, raising concerns about external validity. Recruitment in the Case Management to Enhance Occupational Support (CAMEOS) study used this method to test whether or not it would transfer to a population with long-term sickness absence in the context of occupational health (OH).ParticipantsEmployed people on long-term sickness absence (between 4 weeks and 12 months). The pilot was run with two different collaborators: a large organisation that provided OH services for a number of clients and a non-profit community-based organisation.InterventionCollaborative case management was delivered by specially trained case managers from the host organisations. Sessions were delivered by telephone and supported use of a self-help handbook. The comparator was usual care as provided by participants’ general practitioner (GP) or OH provider. This varied for participants according to the services available to them. Neither participants nor the research team were blind to randomisation.Main outcome measuresRecruitment rates, intervention delivery and acceptability to participants were the main outcomes. Well-being, as measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), and return-to-work rates were also recorded.ResultsIn total, over 1000 potentially eligible participants were identified across the sites and invited to participate. However, responses were received from just 61 of those invited (5.5%), of whom 16 (1.5%) were randomised to the trial (seven to treatment, nine to control). Detailed information on recruitment methods, intervention delivery, engagement and acceptability is presented. No harms were reported in either group.ConclusionsThis pilot study faced a number of barriers, particularly in terms of recruitment of employers to host the research. Our ability to respond to these challenges faced several barriers related to the OH context and the study set up. The intervention seemed feasible and acceptable when delivered, although caution is required because of the small number of randomised participants. However, employees’ lack of engagement in the research might imply that they did not see the intervention as valuable.Future workDeveloping effective and acceptable ways of reducing sickness absence remains a high priority. We discuss possible ways of overcoming these challenges in the future, including incentives for employers, alternative study designs and further modifications to recruitment methods.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN33560198.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 6, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Telephone reminders are effective in recruiting nonresponding patients to randomized controlled trials

Cited by 32 publications

References 10 publications

Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Collaborative case management to aid return to work after long-term sickness absence: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About