Nicola Farrar1, Daisy Elliott2, Catherine Houghton3, Marcus Jepson2, Nicola Mills2, Sangeetha Paramasivan2, Lucy Plumb2,4, Julia Wade2, Bridget Young5, Jenny L Donovan2, Leila Rooshenas2. 1. Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. nicola.farrar@bristol.ac.uk. 2. Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Áras Moyola, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. 4. UK Kidney Association, UK Renal Registry, Bristol, UK. 5. Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs. METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings. RESULTS: In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles. CONCLUSIONS: This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020).
BACKGROUND: Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs. METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings. RESULTS: In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles. CONCLUSIONS: This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020).
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Daisy Elliott; Steffi le Conte; Lucy C Davies; Richéal M Burns; Claire Thomson; Richard Gray; Jane Wolstenholme; Jenny L Donovan; Ray Fitzpatrick; Clare Verrill; Fergus Gleeson; Surjeet Singh; Derek Rosario; James Wf Catto; Simon Brewster; Tim Dudderidge; Richard Hindley; Amr Emara; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Hashim U Ahmed; Tom A Leslie Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Janet Bull; Kathryn Wessell; Lisa Massie; Rachael E Bennett; Jean S Kutner; Noreen M Aziz; Amy Abernethy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Damian Griffin; Peter Wall; Alba Realpe; Ann Adams; Nick Parsons; Rachel Hobson; Juul Achten; Jeremy Fry; Matthew Costa; Stavros Petrou; Nadine Foster; Jenny Donovan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Robert C Stein; Janet A Dunn; John M S Bartlett; Amy F Campbell; Andrea Marshall; Peter Hall; Leila Rooshenas; Adrienne Morgan; Christopher Poole; Sarah E Pinder; David A Cameron; Nigel Stallard; Jenny L Donovan; Christopher McCabe; Luke Hughes-Davies; Andreas Makris Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jane Noyes; Andrew Booth; Simon Lewin; Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton; Christopher J Colvin; Ruth Garside; Meghan A Bohren; Arash Rashidian; Megan Wainwright; Özge Tunςalp; Jacqueline Chandler; Signe Flottorp; Tomas Pantoja; Joseph D Tucker; Heather Munthe-Kaas Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 7.327