OBJECTIVES: To report participant recruitment experiences in a large, US randomized controlled trial (RCT) of lung cancer screening, with the aim of providing information that may be of use to researchers who wish to conduct similar future studies. SETTING: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), an RCT that demonstrated a 20% lung cancer mortality reduction with low dose helical computed tomography screening, relative to single-view chest radiograph screening. Thirty-three US medical centres recruited 53,454 participants from August 2002 through April 2004. METHODS: After recruitment was completed, centre co-ordinators were asked to complete a questionnaire addressing the extent to which specific methods were used and, for each specific method, numbers enrolled and total cost of the effort. Cost per enrollee was calculated. Co-ordinators also were asked to report lessons learned. RESULTS: Twenty-two centres returned questionnaires. Use of recruitment method varied by centre. Among centres reporting number enrolled by method, about 19,000 participants were enrolled with direct mail, about 4200 with mass media, and about 1000 with community outreach. Cost per enrollee varied across centres but medians were (US) $101 (direct mail), $79 (mass media), and $4 (community outreach). Co-ordinators reported that it was important to know where to find persons likely to be eligible and interested, and how best to approach them. CONCLUSIONS:Most NLST participants were recruited through direct mail, although median cost per participant was highest for that method.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To report participant recruitment experiences in a large, US randomized controlled trial (RCT) of lung cancer screening, with the aim of providing information that may be of use to researchers who wish to conduct similar future studies. SETTING: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), an RCT that demonstrated a 20% lung cancer mortality reduction with low dose helical computed tomography screening, relative to single-view chest radiograph screening. Thirty-three US medical centres recruited 53,454 participants from August 2002 through April 2004. METHODS: After recruitment was completed, centre co-ordinators were asked to complete a questionnaire addressing the extent to which specific methods were used and, for each specific method, numbers enrolled and total cost of the effort. Cost per enrollee was calculated. Co-ordinators also were asked to report lessons learned. RESULTS: Twenty-two centres returned questionnaires. Use of recruitment method varied by centre. Among centres reporting number enrolled by method, about 19,000 participants were enrolled with direct mail, about 4200 with mass media, and about 1000 with community outreach. Cost per enrollee varied across centres but medians were (US) $101 (direct mail), $79 (mass media), and $4 (community outreach). Co-ordinators reported that it was important to know where to find persons likely to be eligible and interested, and how best to approach them. CONCLUSIONS: Most NLST participants were recruited through direct mail, although median cost per participant was highest for that method.
Authors: Kavita Garg; Robert L Keith; Tim Byers; Karen Kelly; Anne L Kerzner; David A Lynch; York E Miller Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C I Henschke; D I McCauley; D F Yankelevitz; D P Naidich; G McGuinness; O S Miettinen; D M Libby; M W Pasmantier; J Koizumi; N K Altorki; J P Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-07-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Carola A van Iersel; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Willem P T M Mali; Ernst Th Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Mathias Prokop; J Dik F Habbema; Mathijs Oudkerk; Rob J van Klaveren Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: G E Goodman; B Valanis; F L Meyskens; J H Williams; B J Metch; M D Thornquist; G S Omenn Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kevin Gleason; Donghoon Shin; Michael Rueschman; Tanya Weinstock; Rui Wang; James H Ware; Murray A Mittleman; Susan Redline Journal: Sleep Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Sravya Kakumanu; Braden J Manns; Sophia Tran; Terry Saunders-Smith; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Marcello Tonelli; Ross Tsuyuki; Noah Ivers; Danielle Southern; Jeff Bakal; David J T Campbell Journal: Trials Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Samantha L Quaife; Mamta Ruparel; Rebecca J Beeken; Andy McEwen; John Isitt; Gary Nolan; Karen Sennett; David R Baldwin; Stephen W Duffy; Samuel M Janes; Jane Wardle Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 4.430