OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of publicity on recruitment to a randomized trial. Recruitment is often poor in trials. Publicity within recruitment packs might be an inexpensive method of increasing recruitment. We tested this in two quasi-randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN: In a primary care setting, within the context of a randomized trial of falls prevention, we allocated participants to receive a newspaper article about the study with their information sheet. The first trial compared one newspaper article against no article; the second compared a more favorably written article against the original. RESULTS: In the first study 4,488 participants were allocated into two groups. The response rate was 102 and 97 in the intervention and control groups, respectively (4.55% vs. 4.32%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.98, 1.43); the recruitment rate was 73 and 71, respectively, the difference not being statistically significant. In the second study 2,745 were allocated into two groups with a response rate of 75 and 69 for the control and intervention groups, respectively (5.46% vs. 5.03%, 95% CI: -1.24, 2.09); the recruitment rate was 57 and 54, respectively, the difference not being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These two large experiments revealed no evidence of effect of publicity on recruitment rates.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of publicity on recruitment to a randomized trial. Recruitment is often poor in trials. Publicity within recruitment packs might be an inexpensive method of increasing recruitment. We tested this in two quasi-randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN: In a primary care setting, within the context of a randomized trial of falls prevention, we allocated participants to receive a newspaper article about the study with their information sheet. The first trial compared one newspaper article against no article; the second compared a more favorably written article against the original. RESULTS: In the first study 4,488 participants were allocated into two groups. The response rate was 102 and 97 in the intervention and control groups, respectively (4.55% vs. 4.32%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.98, 1.43); the recruitment rate was 73 and 71, respectively, the difference not being statistically significant. In the second study 2,745 were allocated into two groups with a response rate of 75 and 69 for the control and intervention groups, respectively (5.46% vs. 5.03%, 95% CI: -1.24, 2.09); the recruitment rate was 57 and 54, respectively, the difference not being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These two large experiments revealed no evidence of effect of publicity on recruitment rates.
Authors: Sonika Bhatnagar; Alejandro Hoberman; Diana H Kearney; Nader Shaikh; Marva M Moxey-Mims; Russell W Chesney; Myra A Carpenter; Saul P Greenfield; Ron Keren; Tej K Mattoo; Ranjiv Mathews; Lisa Gravens-Mueller; Anastasia Ivanova Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: Lesley D Gillespie; M Clare Robertson; William J Gillespie; Catherine Sherrington; Simon Gates; Lindy M Clemson; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-09-12
Authors: Shaun Treweek; Pauline Lockhart; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Kjeldstrøm; Marit Johansen; Taina K Taskila; Frank M Sullivan; Sue Wilson; Catherine Jackson; Ritu Jones; Elizabeth D Mitchell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 2.692