↓ Skip to main content

The effect of optimised patient information materials on recruitment in a lung cancer screening trial: an embedded randomised recruitment trial

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
The effect of optimised patient information materials on recruitment in a lung cancer screening trial: an embedded randomised recruitment trial
Published in
Trials, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2896-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adwoa Parker, Peter Knapp, Shaun Treweek, Vichithranie Madhurasinghe, Roberta Littleford, Stephanie Gallant, Frank Sullivan, Stuart Schembri, Jo Rick, Jonathan Graffy, David J. Collier, Sandra Eldridge, Anne Kennedy, Peter Bower

Abstract

Written participant information materials are important for ensuring that potential trial participants receive necessary information so that they can provide informed consent. However, such materials are frequently long and complex, which may negatively impact patient understanding and willingness to participate. Improving readability, ease of comprehension and presentation may assist with improved participant recruitment. The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC START) study aimed to develop and evaluate interventions to improve trial recruitment. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an optimised participant information brochure and cover letter developed by MRC START regarding response and participant recruitment rates. We conducted a study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in the EarlyCDT Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial that aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new test in reducing the incidence of patients with late-stage lung cancer at diagnosis compared with standard care. Potential participants approached for ECLS were randomised to receive the original participant information brochure and accompanying letter (control group) or optimised versions of these materials which had undergone user testing and a process of re-writing, re-organisation and professional graphic design (intervention group). The primary outcome was the number of patients recruited to ECLS. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients expressing an interest in participating in ECLS. In total, 2262 patients were randomised, 1136 of whom were sent the intervention materials and 1126 of whom were sent the control materials. The proportion of patients enrolled and randomised into ECLS was 180 of 1136 (15.8%) in the intervention group and 176 of 1126 (15.6%) in the control group (OR = 1.016, 95% CI, 0.660 to 1.564). The proportion of patients who positively responded to the invitation was 224 of 1136 (19.7%) in the intervention group and 205 of 1126 (18.2%) in the control group (OR = 1.103, 95% CI, 0.778 to 1.565). Optimised patient information materials made little difference to the proportion of patients positively responding to a trial invitation or to the proportion subsequently randomised to the host trial. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01925625 . Registered on 15 August 2015. Study Within A Trial, SWAT-23. Registered on 12 April 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 9 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 10 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,429,429
of 15,922,988 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#509
of 4,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,146
of 279,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them