The effect of personalised versus non-personalised study invitations on recruitment within the ENGAGE feasibility trial: an embedded randomised controlled recruitment trial.

Ella Thiblin, Joanne Woodford, Mattias ��hman, Louise von Essen
Author Information
  1. Ella Thiblin: Healthcare Sciences and e-Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Dag Hammarskj��lds v��g 14B, 751 05, Uppsala, Sweden.
  2. Joanne Woodford: Healthcare Sciences and e-Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Dag Hammarskj��lds v��g 14B, 751 05, Uppsala, Sweden.
  3. Mattias ��hman: Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  4. Louise von Essen: Healthcare Sciences and e-Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Dag Hammarskj��lds v��g 14B, 751 05, Uppsala, Sweden. louise-von.essen@kbh.uu.se.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recruitment into clinical trials is challenging and there is a lack of evidence on effective recruitment strategies. Personalisation of invitation letters is a potentially pragmatic and feasible way of increasing recruitment rates at a low-cost. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning the effect of personalising of study invitation letters on recruitment rates.
METHODS: We undertook a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to investigate the effect of personalised versus non-personalised study invitation letters on recruitment rates into the host feasibility trial ENGAGE, a feasibility study of an internet-administered, guided, Low Intensity Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy based self-help intervention for parents of children previously treated for cancer. An intervention group (n = 254) received a personalised study invitation letter and the control group (n = 255) received a non-personalised study invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in the intervention group and the control group enrolled into the ENGAGE host feasibility trial. Secondary outcomes relating to the recruitment and screening process, and retention were examined. Differences in proportions between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes were estimated using logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of the 509 potential participants, 56 (11.0%) were enrolled into the ENGAGE host feasibility trial: personalised: 30/254 (11.8%) and non-personalised: 26/255 (10.2%). No statistically significant effect on personalisation of enrolment was found (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.68-2.06). No statistically significant differences were found for any secondary outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Personalisation of study invitations had no effect on recruitment. However, given the small study sample size in the present SWAT, and lack of similar embedded recruitment RCTs to enable a meta-analysis, additional SWATs to examine the personalisation of study invitation letters are warranted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN57233429 ; ISRCTN18404129 ; SWAT 112, Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (2018 OCT 1 1231) ( https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,939618,en.pdf ).

Keywords

References

  1. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22-33;quiz 34-57 [PMID: 9881538]
  2. F1000Res. 2019 May 14;8:659 [PMID: 31543954]
  3. BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 20;7(3):e015276 [PMID: 28320800]
  4. F1000Res. 2020 Feb 26;9:154 [PMID: 32399201]
  5. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Nov 13;21(1):247 [PMID: 34773971]
  6. Trials. 2021 Jul 28;22(1):502 [PMID: 34321055]
  7. Acta Oncol. 2017 Dec;56(12):1705-1711 [PMID: 28971717]
  8. BMC Res Notes. 2019 Aug 22;12(1):537 [PMID: 31439025]
  9. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2020 Dec;67(6):1103-1134 [PMID: 33131537]
  10. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 24;9(7):e103340 [PMID: 25058607]
  11. Trials. 2014 Oct 16;15:399 [PMID: 25322807]
  12. BMC Med. 2021 Sep 23;19(1):218 [PMID: 34551765]
  13. Trials. 2013 Jun 09;14:166 [PMID: 23758961]
  14. Pharmacotherapy. 2001 Apr;21(4):405-9 [PMID: 11310512]
  15. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 07;11(6):e0157076 [PMID: 27272318]
  16. J Affect Disord. 2015 Feb 1;172:274-90 [PMID: 25451427]
  17. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 29;13(8):e0203127 [PMID: 30157250]
  18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 6;3:MR000032 [PMID: 33675536]
  19. BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655 [PMID: 18824488]
  20. Trials. 2019 Jul 24;20(1):453 [PMID: 31340853]
  21. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 18;20(4):e133 [PMID: 29669710]
  22. JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Dec 18;5(4):e10085 [PMID: 30563814]
  23. Clin Trials. 2018 Dec;15(6):533-542 [PMID: 30165760]
  24. JMIR Form Res. 2021 Jul 22;5(7):e22709 [PMID: 34142662]
  25. Int J Cancer. 2021 May 15;148(10):2535-2541 [PMID: 33320976]
  26. Trials. 2018 Feb 23;19(1):139 [PMID: 29475444]
  27. Trials. 2014 Oct 25;15:407 [PMID: 25344684]
  28. Trials. 2020 Jan 7;21(1):33 [PMID: 31910861]
  29. Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(48):iii, ix-105 [PMID: 17999843]
  30. PLoS One. 2016 May 17;11(5):e0155585 [PMID: 27187780]
  31. Support Care Cancer. 2014 May;22(5):1287-94 [PMID: 24337762]
  32. BMJ. 2021 Sep 30;374:n2061 [PMID: 34593508]
  33. F1000Res. 2020 Jun 11;9:591 [PMID: 35600143]
  34. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015 Dec;62 Suppl 5:S632-83 [PMID: 26700921]
  35. PeerJ. 2018 Apr 11;6:e4570 [PMID: 29666751]
  36. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008 [PMID: 19588449]
  37. Psychooncology. 2015 Dec;24(12):1792-8 [PMID: 26042579]
  38. Trials. 2018 Mar 1;19(1):147 [PMID: 29490702]
  39. Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9 [PMID: 16603070]
  40. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2:MR000013 [PMID: 29468635]
  41. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020 Apr 24;18:100572 [PMID: 32420511]
  42. Trials. 2015 Mar 07;16:80 [PMID: 25888477]
  43. Trials. 2015 Jun 05;16:261 [PMID: 26044814]
  44. Trials. 2016 Jan 14;17:27 [PMID: 26767365]
  45. BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 14;8(6):e023708 [PMID: 29903802]
  46. Trials. 2020 Oct 15;21(1):856 [PMID: 33059763]

MeSH Term

Child
Feasibility Studies
Health Behavior
Humans
Logistic Models
Research Design
Sample Size

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0recruitmentstudyinvitationeffectfeasibilitytriallettersSWATENGAGEgrouplackratesStudypersonalisednon-personalisedhostinterventionRecruitmentevidencePersonalisationHoweverTrialversusreceivedlettercontrolprimaryoutcomeparticipantsenrolledoutcomessecondary11trial:statisticallysignificantpersonalisationfound1invitationsembeddedwithincontrolledBACKGROUND:clinicaltrialschallengingeffectivestrategiespotentiallypragmaticfeasiblewayincreasinglow-costconcerningpersonalisingMETHODS:undertookWithininvestigateinternet-administeredguidedLowIntensityCognitive-BehaviouralTherapybasedself-helpparentschildrenpreviouslytreatedcancern = 254n = 255proportionSecondaryrelatingscreeningprocessretentionexaminedDifferencesproportionsgroupsestimatedusinglogisticregressionRESULTS:509potential560%personalised:30/2548%non-personalised:26/255102%enrolmentOR1895%CI068-206differencesCONCLUSIONS:givensmallsamplesizepresentsimilarRCTsenablemeta-analysisadditionalSWATsexaminewarrantedTRIALREGISTRATION:ISRCTN57233429ISRCTN18404129112NorthernIrelandHubTrialsMethodologyResearchrepository2018OCT1231 https://wwwqubacuk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload939618enpdfrandomisedRandomisedRetentionmethodology

Similar Articles

Cited By