↓ Skip to main content

Hospital recruitment for a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial: Lessons learned from the COMPASS study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
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
Hospital recruitment for a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial: Lessons learned from the COMPASS study
Published in
Trials, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2434-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna M. Johnson, Sara B. Jones, Pamela W. Duncan, Cheryl D. Bushnell, Sylvia W. Coleman, Laurie H. Mettam, Anna M. Kucharska-Newton, Mysha E. Sissine, Wayne D. Rosamond

Abstract

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials are essential to determine the effectiveness of interventions in "real-world" clinical practice. These trials frequently use a cluster-randomized methodology, with randomization at the site level. Despite policymakers' increased interest in supporting pragmatic randomized clinical trials, no studies to date have reported on the unique recruitment challenges faced by cluster-randomized pragmatic trials. We investigated key challenges and successful strategies for hospital recruitment in the Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) study. The COMPASS study is designed to compare the effectiveness of the COMPASS model versus usual care in improving functional outcomes, reducing the numbers of hospital readmissions, and reducing caregiver strain for patients discharged home after stroke or transient ischemic attack. This model integrates early supported discharge planning with transitional care management, including nurse-led follow-up phone calls after 2, 30, and 60 days and an in-person clinic visit at 7-14 days involving a functional assessment and neurological examination. We present descriptive statistics of the characteristics of successfully recruited hospitals compared with all eligible hospitals, reasons for non-participation, and effective recruitment strategies. We successfully recruited 41 (43%) of 95 eligible North Carolina hospitals. Leading, non-exclusive reasons for non-participation included: insufficient staff or financial resources (n = 33, 61%), lack of health system support (n = 16, 30%), and lack of support of individual decision-makers (n = 11, 20%). Successful recruitment strategies included: building and nurturing relationships, engaging team members and community partners with a diverse skill mix, identifying gatekeepers, finding mutually beneficial solutions, having a central institutional review board, sharing published pilot data, and integrating contracts and review board administrators. Although we incorporated strategies based on the best available evidence at the outset of the study, hospital recruitment required three times as much time and considerably more staff than anticipated. To reach our goal, we tailored strategies to individuals, hospitals, and health systems. Successful recruitment of a sufficient number and representative mix of hospitals requires considerable preparation, planning, and flexibility. Strategies presented here may assist future trial organizers in implementing cluster-randomized pragmatic trials. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02588664 . Registered on 23 October 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 184 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 71 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 16%
Psychology 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 75 41%