↓ Skip to main content

What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
732 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
522 Mendeley
citeulike
7 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 influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies
Published in
Trials, April 2006
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison M McDonald, Rosemary C Knight, Marion K Campbell, Vikki A Entwistle, Adrian M Grant, Jonathan A Cook, Diana R Elbourne, David Francis, Jo Garcia, Ian Roberts, Claire Snowdon

Abstract

A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 522 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 506 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 104 20%
Student > Master 83 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 14%
Student > Bachelor 46 9%
Other 32 6%
Other 91 17%
Unknown 93 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 189 36%
Psychology 37 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 6%
Social Sciences 24 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 3%
Other 104 20%
Unknown 121 23%