Lynn Huynh1, Benjamin Johns2, Su-Hsun Liu3, S Swaroop Vedula4, Tianjing Li5, Milo A Puhan6. 1. Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA lhuynh@analysisgroup.com. 2. Department of International Health, Abt Associates, Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 4. Department of Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A large fraction of the cost of conducting clinical trials is allocated to recruitment of participants. A synthesis of findings from studies that evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different recruitment strategies will inform investigators in designing cost-efficient clinical trials. PURPOSE: To systematically identify, assess, and synthesize evidence from published comparisons of the cost and yield of strategies for recruitment of participants to health research studies. METHODS: We included randomized studies in which two or more strategies for recruitment of participants had been compared. We focused our economic evaluation on studies that randomized participants to different recruitment strategies. RESULTS: We identified 10 randomized studies that compared recruitment strategies, including monetary incentives (cash or prize), direct contact (letters or telephone call), and medical referral strategies. Only two of the 10 studies compared strategies for recruiting participants to clinical trials. We found that allocating additional resources to recruit participants using monetary incentives or direct contact yielded between 4% and 23% additional participants compared to using neither strategy. For medical referral, recruitment of prostate cancer patients by nurses was cost-saving compared to recruitment by consultant urologists. For all underlying study designs, monetary incentives cost more than direct contact with potential participants, with a median incremental cost per recruitment ratio of Int$72 (Int$-International dollar, a theoretical unit of currency) for monetary incentive strategy compared to Int$28 for direct contact strategy. Only monetary incentives and source of referral were evaluated for recruiting participants into clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: We did not review studies that presented non-monetary cost or lost opportunity cost. We did not adjust for the number of study recruitment sites or the study duration in our economic evaluation analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic and explicit reporting of cost and effectiveness of recruitment strategies from randomized comparisons is required to aid investigators to select cost-efficient strategies for recruiting participants to health research studies including clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: A large fraction of the cost of conducting clinical trials is allocated to recruitment of participants. A synthesis of findings from studies that evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different recruitment strategies will inform investigators in designing cost-efficient clinical trials. PURPOSE: To systematically identify, assess, and synthesize evidence from published comparisons of the cost and yield of strategies for recruitment of participants to health research studies. METHODS: We included randomized studies in which two or more strategies for recruitment of participants had been compared. We focused our economic evaluation on studies that randomized participants to different recruitment strategies. RESULTS: We identified 10 randomized studies that compared recruitment strategies, including monetary incentives (cash or prize), direct contact (letters or telephone call), and medical referral strategies. Only two of the 10 studies compared strategies for recruiting participants to clinical trials. We found that allocating additional resources to recruit participants using monetary incentives or direct contact yielded between 4% and 23% additional participants compared to using neither strategy. For medical referral, recruitment of prostate cancerpatients by nurses was cost-saving compared to recruitment by consultant urologists. For all underlying study designs, monetary incentives cost more than direct contact with potential participants, with a median incremental cost per recruitment ratio of Int$72 (Int$-International dollar, a theoretical unit of currency) for monetary incentive strategy compared to Int$28 for direct contact strategy. Only monetary incentives and source of referral were evaluated for recruiting participants into clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: We did not review studies that presented non-monetary cost or lost opportunity cost. We did not adjust for the number of study recruitment sites or the study duration in our economic evaluation analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic and explicit reporting of cost and effectiveness of recruitment strategies from randomized comparisons is required to aid investigators to select cost-efficient strategies for recruiting participants to health research studies including clinical trials.
Authors: Laura M Amendola; Jill O Robinson; Ragan Hart; Sawona Biswas; Kaitlyn Lee; Barbara A Bernhardt; Kelly East; Marian J Gilmore; Tia L Kauffman; Katie L Lewis; Myra Roche; Sarah Scollon; Julia Wynn; Carrie Blout Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Hila Milo Rasouly; Julia Wynn; Maddalena Marasa; Rachel Reingold; Debanjana Chatterjee; Sheena Kapoor; Stacy Piva; Byum Hee Kil; Xueru Mu; Maria Alvarez; Jordan Nestor; Karla Mehl; Anya Revah-Politi; Natalie Lippa; Michelle E Ernst; Louise Bier; Aileen Espinal; Bianca Haser; Anoushka Sinha; Ian Halim; David Fasel; Nicole Cuneo; Jacqueline J Thompson; Miguel Verbitsky; Elizabeth G Cohn; Jill Goldman; Karen Marder; Robert L Klitzman; Manuela A Orjuela; Yat S So; Alex Fedotov; Katherine D Crew; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Paul S Appelbaum; Chunhua Weng; Karolynn Siegel; Ali G Gharavi; Wendy K Chung Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Stephanie R Partridge; Kate Balestracci; Annette Ty Wong; Lana Hebden; Kevin McGeechan; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Mark F Harris; Philayrath Phongsavan; Adrian Bauman; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-06-05
Authors: J Fleming; A Kamal; E Harrison; T Hamborg; S Stewart-Brown; M Thorogood; F Griffiths; W Robertson Journal: Trials Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ekaterina Volkova; Jo Michie; Callie Corrigan; Gerhard Sundborn; Helen Eyles; Yannan Jiang; Cliona Ni Mhurchu Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-07-02 Impact factor: 2.692