Clare McDermott1, Jane Vennik2, Carl Philpott3,4, Steffi le Conte5, Mike Thomas1, Caroline Eyles1, Paul Little1, Helen Blackshaw6, Anne Schilder6, Claire Hopkins7. 1. Primary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 2. Primary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. j.vennik@soton.ac.uk. 3. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 4. James Paget University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Great Yarmouth, UK. 5. Surgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6. evidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK. 7. Guy's and St. Thomas, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the 'gold standard' of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial. METHODS: Setting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial. RESULTS: Recruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns. CONCLUSION: The MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs.
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the 'gold standard' of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial. METHODS: Setting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial. RESULTS: Recruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns. CONCLUSION: The MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs.
Authors: W Fokkens; M Desrosiers; R Harvey; C Hopkins; J Mullol; C Philpott; I Alobid; W T Anselmo-Lima; C Bachert; F Baroody; M Bernal-Sprekelsen; C von Buchwald; A Cervin; N Cohen; J Constantinidis; L De Gabory; R Douglas; P Gevaert; A Hafner; P Hellings; G Joos; L Kalogjera; R Kern; A Knill; J Kocks; B N Landis; J Limpens; S Lebeer; O Lourenco; P M Matricardi; C Meco; L O Mahony; S Reitsma; D Ryan; R Schlosser; B Senior; T Smith; T Teeling; P V Tomazic; S Toppila-Salmi; D Y Wang; D Wang; L Zhang; V Lund Journal: Rhinology Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Nicola Mills; Jenny L Donovan; Julia Wade; Freddie C Hamdy; David E Neal; J Athene Lane Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Caroline Wilson; Leila Rooshenas; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Daisy Elliott; Marcus Jepson; Sean Strong; Alison Birtle; David J Beard; Alison Halliday; Freddie C Hamdy; Rebecca Lewis; Chris Metcalfe; Chris A Rogers; Robert C Stein; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Carl Philpott; Steffi le Conte; David Beard; Jonathan Cook; William Sones; Steve Morris; Caroline S Clarke; Mike Thomas; Paul Little; Jane Vennik; Valerie Lund; Helen Blackshaw; Anne Schilder; Stephen Durham; Spiros Denaxas; James Carpenter; James Boardman; Claire Hopkins Journal: Trials Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jenny L Donovan; Marcus Jepson; Leila Rooshenas; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Nicola Mills; Daisy Elliott; Julia Wade; Domenic Reda; Jane M Blazeby; Drew Moghanaki; E Shelley Hwang; Louise Davies Journal: Trials Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 2.279