↓ Skip to main content

What can we learn from trial decliners about improving recruitment? Qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What can we learn from trial decliners about improving recruitment? Qualitative study
Published in
Trials, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1626-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adwoa Hughes-Morley, Bridget Young, Roelie J. Hempel, Ian T. Russell, Waquas Waheed, Peter Bower

Abstract

Trials increasingly experience problems in recruiting participants. Understanding the causes of poor recruitment is critical to developing solutions. We interviewed people who had declined a trial of an innovative psychological therapy for depression (REFRAMED) about their response to the trial invitation, in order to understand their decision and identify ways to improve recruitment. Of 214 people who declined the trial, 35 (16 %) gave permission to be contacted about a qualitative study to explore their decision. Analysis of transcripts of semi-structured interviews was informed by grounded theory. We interviewed 20 informants: 14 women and six men, aged 18 to 77 years. Many interviewees had prior experience of research participation and positive views of the trial. Interviewees' decision making resembled a four-stage sequential process; in each stage they either decided not to participate in the trial or progressed to the next stage. In stage 1, interviewees assessed the invitation in the context of their experiences and attitudes; we term those who opted out at this stage 'prior decliners' as they had an established position of declining trials. In stage 2, interviewees assessed their own eligibility; those who judged themselves ineligible and opted out at this stage are termed 'self-excluders'. In stage 3, interviewees assessed their need for the trial therapy and potential to benefit; we term those who decided they did not need the trial therapy and opted out at this stage 'treatment decliners'. In stage 4, interviewees deliberated the benefits and costs of trial participation; those who opted out after judging that disadvantages outweighed advantages are termed 'trial decliners'. Across all stages, most individuals declined because they judged themselves ineligible or not in need of the trial therapy. While 'prior decliners' are unlikely to respond to any trial recruitment initiative, the factors leading others to decline are amenable to amelioration as they do not arise from a rejection of trials or a personal stance. To improve recruitment in similar trials, the most successful interventions are likely to address patients' assessments of their eligibility and their potential to benefit from the trial treatment, rather than reducing trial burden. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN85784627 . Registration date 10 August 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 19%
Psychology 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 27 31%