| Literature DB >> 19860906 |
Karen J Sherman1, Rene J Hawkes, Laura Ichikawa, Daniel C Cherkin, Richard A Deyo, Andrew L Avins, Partap S Khalsa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meeting recruitment goals is challenging for many clinical trials conducted in primary care populations. Little is known about how the use of different recruitment strategies affects the types of individuals choosing to participate or the conclusions of the study.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19860906 PMCID: PMC2774333 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-69
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol ISSN: 1471-2288 Impact factor: 4.615
Study recruitment resolution by recruitment method and randomization group
| Mailed Letter | Magazine Advertisement | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of responses received | 859 | 410 | ||
| N | % | N | % | |
| Ineligible | 597 | 69 | 270 | 66 |
| Refused | 36 | 4 | 14 | 3 |
| Unable to contact | 15 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Recruitment ended before eligibility asessed | 15 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| No. randomized | 196 | 23 | 116 | 28 |
| Acupuncture | Usual care | Acupuncture | Usual care | |
| (N = 150) | (N = 46) | (N = 85) | (N = 31) | |
| No. treatments received | N (%) | N (%) | ||
| 0 | 5 (3) | N/A | 4 (5) | N/A |
| 1-7 | 11 (7) | N/A | 6 (7) | N/A |
| 8-10 | 134 (89) | N/A | 75 (88) | N/A |
| No. of withdrawals | ||||
| - no follow-up | 3 (2) | 3 | 3 (4) | 0 |
| - with follow-up | 9 (6) | N/A | 6 (7) | N/A |
Demographic and back pain baseline characteristics of study population by randomization group and recruitment method
| Acupuncture | Usual care | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailed | Magazine | Mailed | Magazine | Mailed | Magazine | ||
| Letter | Ad | Letter | Ad | Letter | Ad | p for | |
| (n = 150) | (n = 85) | (n = 46) | (n = 31) | (n = 196) | (n = 116) | difference* | |
| Age, mean(SD) years | 46 (13) | 49 (13) | 45 (12) | 49 (13) | 46 (13) | 49 (13) | 0.07 |
| Female, % | 61 | 60 | 61 | 71 | 61 | 63 | 0.70 |
| White, % | 89 | 93 | 89 | 84 | 89 | 91 | 0.73 |
| Hispanic origin, % | 4 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0.37 |
| College graduate % | 52 | 71 | 50 | 58 | 52 | 67 | |
| Married, % | 63 | 55 | 63 | 65 | 63 | 58 | 0.38 |
| Household income $45,000+/year, % | 66 | 62 | 76 | 74 | 73 | 67 | 0.26 |
| Employed, % | 81 | 78 | 83 | 71 | 81 | 76 | 0.27 |
| Duration of low back pain at least one year, % | 68 | 58 | 80 | 61 | 71 | 59 | |
| Prior surgery, hospitalization or injections, % | 13 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 12 | 11 | 0.78 |
| Reduced activity for 7+ days in last 3 months due to low back pain, % | 29 | 34 | 30 | 32 | 29 | 34 | 0.42 |
| Days of pain in last 3 months: | |||||||
| mean (SD) number of days | 68 (26) | 72 (21) | 72 (25) | 78 (21) | 69 (25) | 74 (21) | 0.43 |
| median number of days | 80 | 80 | 90 | 90 | 80 | 83 | |
| Pain below knee % | 17 | 18 | 17 | 23 | 17 | 19 | 0.63 |
| Symptom bothersomeness, mean (SD) (0-10 scale) | 5.1 (2.2) | 4.9 (2.3) | 5.4 (2.0) | 5.7 (2.2) | 5.1 (2.1) | 5.1 (2.3) | 0.98 |
| RMDQ, mean (SD) (0-23 scale) | 9.9 (5.1) | 9.5 (4.9) | 10.6 (4.8) | 10.0 (5.1) | 10.1 (5.0) | 9.6 (5.0) | 0.45 |
| Expectation of at least moderate improvement in low back pain in next year, % | 45 | 44 | 50 | 52 | 46 | 46 | 0.99 |
* p < 0.05 is indicated in bold typeface
Abbreviation: RMDQ, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire
Additional baseline characteristics of study population by randomization group and recruitment method
| Acupuncture | Usual care | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailed | Magazine | Mailed | Magazine | Mailed | Magazine | ||
| Letter | Ad | Letter | Ad | Letter | Ad | p for | |
| (n = 150) | (n = 85) | (n = 46) | (n = 31) | (n = 196) | (n = 116) | difference* | |
| Medication use in past week, % | 67 | 64 | 72 | 65 | 68 | 64 | 0.43 |
| Satisfaction with care: overall, % | |||||||
| Very or somewhat satisfied | 45 | 32 | 39 | 39 | 43 | 34 | |
| Not satisfied or dissatisfied | 51 | 53 | 59 | 52 | 53 | 53 | |
| Missing | 4 | 15 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 14 | |
| At least moderately agree will try to manage back pain by self in future, % | 23 | 20 | 17 | 23 | 22 | 21 | 0.80 |
| Back exercise in past week: | |||||||
| % any | 66 | 69 | 59 | 71 | 64 | 70 | 0.32 |
| mean (SD) number of days | 2.5 (2.4) | 2.5 (2.4) | 2.3 (2.4) | 3.0 (2.6) | 2.5 (2.4) | 2.6 (2.4) | 0.47 |
| median number of days | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | |
| Active exercise in past week: | |||||||
| % any | 73 | 84 | 80 | 74 | 74 | 81 | 0.18 |
| mean (SD) number of days | 2.6 (2.2) | 3.3 (2.2) | 2.8 (1.9) | 2.8 (2.3) | 2.6 (2.1) | 3.2 (2.2) | |
| median number of days | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| Expectation of helpfulness of acupuncture, mean (SD) (0-10 scale) (based on non-missing data) | 6.3 (1.8) | 6.6 (1.8) | 7.0 (1.7) | 6.9 (1.8) | 6.5 (1.8) | 6.6 (1.8) | 0.44 |
| Preferred treatment, % | 0.29 | ||||||
| Acupuncture | 25 | 37 | 33 | 36 | 28 | 38 | |
| Other CAM | 43 | 38 | 33 | 32 | 42 | 38 | |
| Conventional | 25 | 20 | 33 | 26 | 28 | 23 | |
| Other/Unknown | 7 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2 | |
| Any knowledge of acupuncture, % | 32 | 38 | 33 | 48 | 32 | 41 | 0.13 |
| Told about acupuncture effectiveness, % | 0.33 | ||||||
| Very effective | 27 | 34 | 30 | 23 | 28 | 31 | |
| Less than very effective | 32 | 31 | 22 | 42 | 30 | 34 | |
| Unknown | 41 | 35 | 48 | 36 | 42 | 35 | |
| Impression of acupuncture, % | 0.17 | ||||||
| Very positive | 21 | 25 | 22 | 23 | 21 | 24 | |
| Moderately positive | 28 | 42 | 44 | 32 | 32 | 40 | |
| Negative or Slightly positive | 51 | 33 | 35 | 45 | 47 | 36 | |
* p < 0.05 is indicated in bold typeface
Unadjusted mean difference from baseline to follow-up for outcomes by treatment group and recruitment method
| Acupuncture | Usual care | Test for interaction of treatment group and recruitment method | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up Interval | Mailed Letter | Magazine Advertisement | Mailed Letter | Magazine Advertisement | |||||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | ||||||
| N | (95% CI) | N | (95% CI) | N | (95% CI) | N | (95% CI) | ||
| Symptom bothersomeness | 144 | -1.8 (-2.3, -1.4) | 81 | -1.6 (-2.2, -1.0) | 41 | -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1) | 30 | -1.5 (-2.5, -.05) | 0.82 |
| RMDQ | 144 | -3.8 (-4.7, -2.9) | 82 | -3.3 (-4.4, -2.1) | 41 | -0.9 (-2.3, +0.5) | 30 | -2.3 (-3.7, -1.0) | 0.99 |
| Symptom bothersomeness | 143 | -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8) | 82 | -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0) | 40 | -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5) | 29 | -1.4 (-2.5, -0.3) | 0.30 |
| RMDQ | 143 | -3.5 (-4.4, -2.5) | 82 | -3.8 (-4.8, -2.8) | 40 | -2.5 (-4.1, -1.0) | 29 | -2.5 (-4.2, -0.7) | 0.25 |
| Symptom bothersomeness | 140 | -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9) | 80 | -1.8 (-2.4, -1.1) | 38 | -1.5 (-2.4, -0.6) | 30 | -1.3 (-2.2, -0.3) | 0.20 |
| RMDQ | 140 | -3.5 (-4.4, -2.7) | 80 | -4.1 (-5.1, -3.1) | 38 | -3.2 (-4.7, -1.8) | 30 | -2.4 (-4.4, -0.4) | 0.17 |
Note: main effect of recruitment method is not significant in any of the models
Abbreviation: RMDQ, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire