Search

Background: Participant non-response is a source of bias in all research, especially in randomised controlled trials. Participants followed up remotely can have high non-response rates. Four such trials have been conducted of a cover letter with content informed by behaviour change theory to overcome hypothesised barriers to responding to a mailed questionnaire. Pooled results to date have suggested further research to be worthwhile. We conducted an embedded randomised study within a trial of such cover letters in the hope that we would improve response rates to our postal quality of life questionnaires. Methods: One hundred forty-eight participants in the CODIFI2 diabetic foot ulcer sampling trial were randomised 1:1 to receive one of two different cover letters at follow-up timepoints: either a standard cover letter accompanying their postal follow-up questionnaires or to an 'enhanced' (theory-informed) cover letter. Questionnaires were mailed at 39, 52 and (for some participants) 104 weeks post randomisation. Outcome measures were response to mailing at each timepoint. Analysis was restricted to those for whom a questionnaire and letter was issued. Owing to limited recruitment, a reduced analysis plan, comprising solely observed response rates and 95% confidence intervals for difference in response rates was followed. Post hoc, we added our week 52 results to an already-published meta-analysis. Results: Sixty-seven out of 74 enhanced cover letter group (Enhanced) and 67/74 standard cover letter group (Standard) participants who had not already died or withdrawn were sent their first mailing at 39 weeks. The 39-week response rates were 47/67 (70.1%) and 39/67 (58.2%) for Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. At week 52, the response rates were 45/64 (70.3%) and 35/63 (55.6%) for Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. At week 104, the response rates were 24/33 (72.7%) and 19/33 (57.6%) for the Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. Adding our week 52 results to a published meta-analysis increased the pooled estimate of differences in response rates to 0.04 (− 0.01 to 0.09) favouring enhanced letters. Conclusion: While this embedded randomised controlled trial observed greater response rates at all times among those randomised to the enhanced letter, the reduced sample size meant that these results are imprecise. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN74929588. Registered on 5 March 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Participant non-response is a source of bias in all research, especially in randomised controlled trials. Participants followed up remotely can have high non-response rates. Four such trials have been conducted of a cover letter with content informed by behaviour change theory to overcome hypothesised barriers to responding to a mailed questionnaire. Pooled results to date have suggested further research to be worthwhile. We conducted an embedded randomised study within a trial of such cover letters in the hope that we would improve response rates to our postal quality of life questionnaires. Methods One hundred forty-eight participants in the CODIFI2 diabetic foot ulcer sampling trial were randomised 1:1 to receive one of two different cover letters at follow-up timepoints: either a standard cover letter accompanying their postal follow-up questionnaires or to an ‘enhanced’ (theory-informed) cover letter. Questionnaires were mailed at 39, 52 and (for some participants) 104 weeks post randomisation. Outcome measures were response to mailing at each timepoint. Analysis was restricted to those for whom a questionnaire and letter was issued. Owing to limited recruitment, a reduced analysis plan, comprising solely observed response rates and 95% confidence intervals for difference in response rates was followed. Post hoc, we added our week 52 results to an already-published meta-analysis. Results Sixty-seven out of 74 enhanced cover letter group (Enhanced) and 67/74 standard cover letter group (Standard) participants who had not already died or withdrawn were sent their first mailing at 39 weeks. The 39-week response rates were 47/67 (70.1%) and 39/67 (58.2%) for Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. At week 52, the response rates were 45/64 (70.3%) and 35/63 (55.6%) for Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. At week 104, the response rates were 24/33 (72.7%) and 19/33 (57.6%) for the Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. Adding our week 52 results to a published meta-analysis increased the pooled estimate of differences in response rates to 0.04 (− 0.01 to 0.09) favouring enhanced letters. Conclusion While this embedded randomised controlled trial observed greater response rates at all times among those randomised to the enhanced letter, the reduced sample size meant that these results are imprecise. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN74929588. Registered on 5 March 2019.

Abstract Background Evidence to support decisions on trial processes is minimal. One way to generate this evidence is to use a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to test trial processes or explore methodological uncertainties. SWAT evidence relies on replication to ensure sufficient power and broad applicability of findings. Prompt reporting is therefore essential; however, SWAT publications are often the first to be abandoned in the face of other time pressures. Reporting guidance for embedded methodology trials does exist but is not widely used. We sought therefore to build on these guidelines to develop a straightforward, concise reporting standard, which remains adherent to the CONSORT guideline. Methods An iterative process was used to develop the guideline. This included initial meetings with key stakeholders, development of an initial guideline, pilot testing of draft guidelines, further iteration and pilot testing, and finalisation of the guideline. Results We developed a reporting guideline applicable to randomised SWATs, including replications of previous evaluations. The guideline follows the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and provides example text to ensure ease and clarity of reporting across all domains. Conclusions The SWAT reporting guideline will aid authors, reviewers, and journal editors to produce and review clear, structured reports of randomised SWATs, whilst also adhering to the CONSORT guideline. Trial registration EQUATOR Network – Guidelines Under Development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#SWAT ). Registered on 25 March 2021.

Abstract Background Improving retention within randomised controlled trials is important. The effectiveness of different strategies can be assessed using a Study Within A Trial (SWAT). Previous research has shown personalised text message reminders improve clinic attendance rates; however, the results are mixed on improving postal questionnaire return. This SWAT aims to assess whether personalised text message reminders improve completion rates for scheduled telephone follow-ups. Methods This SWAT is a two-arm, multi-centre randomised controlled trial with equal allocation. The host trial was the Melatonin for Anxiety prior to General anaesthesia In Children trial (ISRCTN 18296119), where the child’s caregiver was to answer a scheduled telephone follow-up 14 days post-surgery; participants for the SWAT were therefore the caregiver. Text messages were sent 24–48 h before the scheduled call and the personalised version contained the first name of the caregiver which was omitted in the non-personalised version. The primary outcome was questionnaire completion rate, defined as the proportion of caregivers successfully contacted, and completed any of the questionnaires, over the telephone within the follow-up window (day 14 + 7 days). Results The SWAT included 100 of the 110 (91%) participants randomised into the host trial. Randomisation within the SWAT was equal between non-personalised (n = 50) and personalised (n = 50) interventions. The overall questionnaire response rate was 73% with a difference between the two interventions of 68% in the non-personalised text message arm and 78% in the personalised text message arm. The adjusted absolute risk difference was 7.1% (95% confidence interval = −10.2%, 24.4%). There was no difference in either the time to response or the number of contact attempts between the two interventions. Conclusions There is some evidence that personalised text messages could be effective at increasing response rates when data is collected via telephone and in a population of caregivers for paediatric trial participants. However, similar SWATs have shown mixed results. Given the low-cost and low risks associated with personalising text message reminders, this SWAT could be implemented easily in other RCTs scheduling telephone follow-up appointments. Trial Registration ISRCTN 18296119 , SWAT 35 (MRC Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Network).

Abstract Background Informed consent is critical to the ethical conduct of clinical research and requires understanding of a trial including its purpose, process, potential risks and benefits, and alternatives to participation. This can be challenging for complex trials, such as platform trials, and in high-stress environments, such as the intensive care unit (ICU). REMAP-CAP (randomized, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial for community-acquired pneumonia) is a platform trial which studies treatments for ICU patients with community-acquired pneumonia, including COVID-19. Patient/family partners (PFP) identified challenges during the REMAP-CAP consent process. Methods This is a patient-centred co-design study to refine and test an infographic to supplement current REMAP-CAP consent documents. Infographic prototypes were developed by patients, substitute decision-makers (SDMs), and researchers with lived experience in the ICU or with ICU research. We will apply a two-phase exploratory sequential, mixed-methods research design. In phase 1, we will conduct focus groups with ICU patients, SDMs, and research coordinators (RCs). We will use inductive content analysis to inform infographic refinement, to be pilot tested in phase 2. Phase 2 is a prospective study within a trial (SWAT) at ≤ 5 REMAP-CAP sites. We will collect self-reported data from patients/SDMs and RCs. The primary outcome is feasibility (eligible consent encounters, receipt of infographic, consent to follow-up, completion of follow-up surveys). Data will be integrated to understand if/how quantitative results build upon the qualitatively informed infographic. Discussion Phase 1 results will be used to co-design an infographic, directly informed by the perspectives of patients, SDMs, and RCs involved in ICU research consent discussions. Results from phase 2 will determine the feasibility of infographic implementation in REMAP-CAP consent encounters. These feasibility data will inform a larger SWAT to evaluate our consent infographic. If successful, use of a co-designed infographic to support REMAP-CAP consent documents may improve the experience of consent for patients, SDMs, and RCs. Trial registration The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT no. 176)

Background Many strategies are used by trialists to improve recruitment, but few have been tested. We aimed to evaluate two interventions: 1) a study branded pen and 2) brief participant information leaflet, included within invitation packs for the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 (MSS3) trial. Methods A 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT) embedded into MSS3 – a randomised trial of a community-based clinic for patients with persistent, medically unexplained, physical symptoms. Potential MSS3 participants received postal invitations sent via GP practices, along with a MSS3 branded pen and/or brief participant information leaflet (PIL) or neither. The primary outcome was randomisation rate. Secondary outcomes were return rate, time to return, reasons for non-randomised returns and cost-effectiveness. Results 108 GP practices posted 6946 invitations, from which 318 participants (4.6%) were randomised to the host trial. Between those sent a brief PIL (n=3467) and not sent a brief PIL (n=3479) there was no significant difference in randomisation rates (166 (4.8%) vs 152 (4.4%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.38). Response rates were significantly higher in those sent the brief PIL (573 (16.5%) vs 513 (14.7%); OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.30). Between those sent the pen (n=3464) and not sent the pen (n=3482) there was no evidence of increased randomisation (145 (4.2%) vs 173 (5.0%); OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.05) and the difference in response rates was not statistically significant (563 (16.3%) vs 523 (15.0%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.25). For both SWAT interventions, time to response was comparable between groups. Conclusion There was no significant evidence of effectiveness of the brief PIL intervention or the pen intervention on recruitment to the host study. There was evidence of increased response rates to the initial invitation in the brief PIL group, compared to those not receiving a brief PIL in their invitation pack.

Background: Informed consent is critical to the ethical conduct of clinical research and requires understanding of a trial including its purpose, process, potential risks and benefits, and alternatives to participation. This can be challenging for complex trials, such as platform trials, and in high-stress environments, such as the intensive care unit (ICU). REMAP-CAP (randomized, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial for community-acquired pneumonia) is a platform trial which studies treatments for ICU patients with community-acquired pneumonia, including COVID-19. Patient/family partners (PFP) identified challenges during the REMAP-CAP consent process. Methods: This is a patient-centred co-design study to refine and test an infographic to supplement current REMAP-CAP consent documents. Infographic prototypes were developed by patients, substitute decision-makers (SDMs), and researchers with lived experience in the ICU or with ICU research. We will apply a two-phase exploratory sequential, mixed-methods research design. In phase 1, we will conduct focus groups with ICU patients, SDMs, and research coordinators (RCs). We will use inductive content analysis to inform infographic refinement, to be pilot tested in phase 2. Phase 2 is a prospective study within a trial (SWAT) at ≤ 5 REMAP-CAP sites. We will collect self-reported data from patients/SDMs and RCs. The primary outcome is feasibility (eligible consent encounters, receipt of infographic, consent to follow-up, completion of follow-up surveys). Data will be integrated to understand if/how quantitative results build upon the qualitatively informed infographic. Discussion: Phase 1 results will be used to co-design an infographic, directly informed by the perspectives of patients, SDMs, and RCs involved in ICU research consent discussions. Results from phase 2 will determine the feasibility of infographic implementation in REMAP-CAP consent encounters. These feasibility data will inform a larger SWAT to evaluate our consent infographic. If successful, use of a co-designed infographic to support REMAP-CAP consent documents may improve the experience of consent for patients, SDMs, and RCs. Trial registration: The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT no. 176) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective Participant recruitment is one of the main challenges in research. It is suggested that including researcher photographs might increase participation rates, but empirical evidence is lacking. This study within a trial (SWAT) aims to assess whether invitation letters including researcher photographs increase the participation rate in the context of a survey on medical second opinions. Methods Through 25 local register offices in Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany), we identified a random sample of 9990 persons. We randomly assigned our sample to the intervention group (IG) receiving an invitation letter with researcher photographs and control group (CG) receiving an invitation letter without photographs in a 1:1 ratio. Our primary outcome was the participation rate. Furthermore, we compared participants to non-participants’ characteristics. Results Of 9990 invitations, 9797 could be delivered (IG: 4890, CG: 4907). Of these, 1349 (13.8%) participated. There were 682/4890 (13.9%) participants in the IG and 662/4907 (13.5%) in the CG with an odds ratio of 1.030 (95% confidence interval: 0.918–1.156). Additional analyses on non-participant characteristics did not show any differences. Conclusion We could not find any difference in the participation rates. Our study does not confirm the results of previous studies. The length of our questionnaire may have affected our results. Trial registration Queens University Belfast – SWAT Store, SWAT 104.

Abstract Background Men are often viewed as a difficult group to recruit for psychological research, including in psycho-oncology. Whilst research has demonstrated the effectiveness of small monetary incentives for encouraging research participation, little research has examined different large unconditional incentive amounts. Larger unconditional incentives may result in increased participation of men in psychological research. This randomised study within a case–control trial of men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer aimed to investigate whether (a) response rates to a 30-min questionnaire completed via mail, online, or phone would vary with different unconditional incentive amounts, and (b) demographics would vary in those who responded within the different incentive groups. Methods We conducted this randomised study within a case–control cross-sectional study aiming to identify the social-ecological factors influencing treatment discontinuation in prostate cancer patients. A total of 238 participants from the cross-sectional study were randomised to receive one of two unconditional incentives (n = 121 received AUD$10, n = 117 received AUD$20) with the study materials (consent form and survey). Results Overall, 113 (47%) responded; n = 61/121 (50.4%) in the AUD$10 group, and n = 52/117 (44.4%) in the AUD$20 group. No evidence of a difference was found in response rates by incentive group (odds ratio 1.27, 95% CI = 0.76–2.12, p = 0.36). Additionally, there were no evident differences in the demographics of the responders vs. non-responders within each incentive group (all p > 0.05). Conclusions Unlike previous research, we were unable to show that higher monetary incentives were more effective for increasing response rates. An AUD$20 unconditional incentive may be no more effective than a lesser amount for encouraging prostate cancer survivors to participate in research involving long questionnaires. Future research should consider the cost-benefits of providing large unconditional incentives, as non-responses will result in lost resources perhaps better utilised in other engagement strategies.

Background: Poor response rates to follow-up questionnaires can adversely affect the progress of a randomised controlled trial and the validity of its results. This embedded ‘study within a trial’ aimed to investigate the impact of including a pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire completed by the trial participants on the response rates to this questionnaire. Methods: This study was a two-armed randomised controlled trial nested in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial. Participants in the intervention group of the GYY trial were allocated 1:1 using simple randomisation to either receive a pen (intervention) or no pen with their 3-month questionnaire (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire who returned it. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, proportion of participants sent a reminder to return the questionnaire, and completeness of the questionnaire. Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, time to return by Cox Proportional hazards regression and number of items completed by linear regression. Results: There were 111 participants randomised to the pen group and 118 to the no pen group who were sent a 3-month questionnaire. There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (pen 107 (96.4%), no pen 117 (99.2%); OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). Furthermore, there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in terms of time to return the questionnaire (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47), the proportion of participants sent a reminder (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60) nor the number of items completed (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07). Conclusion: The inclusion of a pen with the postal 3-month follow-up questionnaire did not have a statistically significant effect on response rate.

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 ).

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes’ (PWD) and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD. Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.

Background: Poor response rates to follow-up questionnaires can adversely affect the progress of a randomised controlled trial and the validity of its results. This embedded ‘study within a trial’ aimed to investigate the impact of including a pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire completed by the trial participants on the response rates to this questionnaire. Methods: This study was a two-armed randomised controlled trial nested in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial. Participants in the intervention group of the GYY trial were allocated 1:1 using simple randomisation to either receive a pen (intervention) or no pen with their 3-month questionnaire (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire who returned it. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, proportion of participants sent a reminder to return the questionnaire, and completeness of the questionnaire. Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, time to return by Cox Proportional hazards regression and number of items completed by linear regression. Results: There were 111 participants randomised to the pen group and 118 to the no pen group who were sent a 3-month questionnaire. There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (pen 107 (96.4%), no pen 117 (99.2%); OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). Furthermore, there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in terms of time to return the questionnaire (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47), the proportion of participants sent a reminder (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60) nor the number of items completed (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07). Conclusion: The inclusion of a pen with the postal 3-month follow-up questionnaire did not have a statistically significant effect on response rate.

Background: Men are often viewed as a difficult group to recruit for psychological research, including in psycho-oncology. Whilst research has demonstrated the effectiveness of small monetary incentives for encouraging research participation, little research has examined different large unconditional incentive amounts. Larger unconditional incentives may result in increased participation of men in psychological research. This randomised study within a case-control trial of men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer aimed to investigate whether (a) response rates to a 30-min questionnaire completed via mail, online, or phone would vary with different unconditional incentive amounts, and (b) demographics would vary in those who responded within the different incentive groups.Methods: We conducted this randomised study within a case-control cross-sectional study aiming to identify the social-ecological factors influencing treatment discontinuation in prostate cancer patients. A total of 238 participants from the cross-sectional study were randomised to receive one of two unconditional incentives (n = 121 received AUD$10, n = 117 received AUD$20) with the study materials (consent form and survey).Results: Overall, 113 (47%) responded; n = 61/121 (50.4%) in the AUD$10 group, and n = 52/117 (44.4%) in the AUD$20 group. No evidence of a difference was found in response rates by incentive group (odds ratio 1.27, 95% CI = 0.76-2.12, p = 0.36). Additionally, there were no evident differences in the demographics of the responders vs. non-responders within each incentive group (all p > 0.05).Conclusions: Unlike previous research, we were unable to show that higher monetary incentives were more effective for increasing response rates. An AUD$20 unconditional incentive may be no more effective than a lesser amount for encouraging prostate cancer survivors to participate in research involving long questionnaires. Future research should consider the cost-benefits of providing large unconditional incentives, as non-responses will result in lost resources perhaps better utilised in other engagement strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Participant recruitment is one of the main challenges in research. It is suggested that including researcher photographs might increase participation rates, but empirical evidence is lacking. This study within a trial (SWAT) aims to assess whether invitation letters including researcher photographs increase the participation rate in the context of a survey on medical second opinions.Methods: Through 25 local register offices in Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany), we identified a random sample of 9990 persons. We randomly assigned our sample to the intervention group (IG) receiving an invitation letter with researcher photographs and control group (CG) receiving an invitation letter without photographs in a 1:1 ratio. Our primary outcome was the participation rate. Furthermore, we compared participants to non-participants' characteristics.Results: Of 9990 invitations, 9797 could be delivered (IG: 4890, CG: 4907). Of these, 1349 (13.8%) participated. There were 682/4890 (13.9%) participants in the IG and 662/4907 (13.5%) in the CG with an odds ratio of 1.030 (95% confidence interval: 0.918-1.156). Additional analyses on non-participant characteristics did not show any differences.Conclusion: We could not find any difference in the participation rates. Our study does not confirm the results of previous studies. The length of our questionnaire may have affected our results.Trial Registration: Queens University Belfast - SWAT Store, SWAT 104. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Use of a person’s name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient’s name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires. Methods Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost. Results Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message. Conclusion Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message. Trial registration GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 (GBP) in cash with a postal recruitment pack to increase the number of participants randomised into the host trial (‘Gentle Years Yoga’) for older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant randomised. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: 818 potential host trial participants were included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). Between those sent £5 (n=409) and not sent £5 (n=409), there was no evidence of increased randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57), but more screening forms were returned (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and there was decreased time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22). No significant interaction between the interventions was observed. The cost per additional participant randomised was £32 and £1000 for the pen and £5, respectively. Conclusion: A small, monetary incentive did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial but did encourage increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens were cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit.

Background: There is uncertainty about the effects of modifications to trial patient invitation letters on recruitment and retention. However, such documents are important. Methods: A 2x2 factorial design embedded a pair of randomised Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) within a large host trial (CLEAR), to evaluate the effects of including wet-ink signatures and photographs in the patient invitation letter. Patients were randomised to receive one of four invitation letters: with a wet-ink or generic signature, and with or without a photograph. The primary outcome was the proportion of invited patients who joined the CLEAR trial. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients retained in the trial. Results: 368 letters were given to potential participants in the CLEAR trial and 121 (33%) joined. Proportions for each randomised group were generic signature and no photograph: 38% (33/88); generic signature and photograph: 32% (28/88); wet-ink personal signature and no photograph: 29% (26/91); wet-ink personal signature and photograph: 34% (34/101). There was no evidence of a significant difference in recruitment between those receiving the patient invitation letter containing a wet-ink versus generic signature (odds ratio (OR): 0.86, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.55 to 1.32, p=0.49) or photograph versus no photograph (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.53, p=0.97). Retention was similar for the wet-ink and generic signature groups (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.16, p=0.77) but significantly better when a photograph was used (OR: 5.40, 95% CI: 1.12 to 26.15, p=0.04, based on 2 withdrawals in the photograph group versus 9 in the no photograph group). Conclusions: These SWAT add to the evidence base for the effects of modifications to clinical trial documentation on recruitment and retention. We found including a photograph may improve retention. Although these analyses are underpowered, they will contribute to meta-analysis of similar comparisons. ISRCTN registration: 89040295 (06/07/2018)

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 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 (GBP) in cash with a postal recruitment pack to increase the number of participants randomised into the host trial (‘Gentle Years Yoga’) for older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant randomised. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: 818 potential host trial participants were included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). Between those sent £5 (n=409) and not sent £5 (n=409), there was no evidence of increased randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57), but more screening forms were returned (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and there was decreased time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22). No significant interaction between the interventions was observed. The cost per additional participant randomised was £32 and £1000 for the pen and £5, respectively. Conclusion: A small, monetary incentive did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial but did encourage increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens were cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit.

Background: Several studies have investigated whether personalising trial documentation can aid recruitment and retention. We did a ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT) evaluating the effectiveness of a personalised text message compared to a non-personalised text message, on the retention rate in a large orthopaedic trial. Methods: The SWAT was embedded in the Knee Replacement Bandaging Study (KReBS) trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of 12-month questionnaires returned. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of questionnaires completed and time to questionnaire return. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) are presented, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Results: In total, 1465 participants were included in the SWAT. In the personalised group, 644/723 (89.1%) of participants returned a questionnaire, compared to 654/742 (88.1%) in the non-personalised group. The absolute difference in return rate was 0.9% (95% CI: -2.3% to 4.2%; p=0.57). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the likelihood of returning a questionnaire (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.51; p=0.61), the likelihood of returning a complete questionnaire (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.51; p=0.50) nor in time to return (HR 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.17; p=0.40). Conclusion: This SWAT adds to the growing evidence base for whether personalised text messages are effective. Registration: ISRCTN87127065 (20/02/2017); SWAT 35 (01/12/2015)

Background: We did a ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT), evaluating the effectiveness of the inclusion of a pen with a postal questionnaire, compared to no pen being included, on the retention rate in a large orthopaedic trial. Methods: The SWAT was embedded in the KReBS trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of 12-month questionnaires returned. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of questionnaires completed and time to questionnaire return. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) are presented, with associated 95% confidence intervals and p-values. Results: In total, 2305 participants were randomised into the SWAT. In the pen group, 1020/1145 (89.1%) of participants returned a questionnaire, compared to 982/1147 (85.6%) in the no pen group. The absolute difference in questionnaire return rate was 3.5% (95% CI: 0.8% to 6.2%; p=0.01). There were statistically significant differences in questionnaire return rate (OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.74; p=0.02), questionnaire completion rate (OR 1.40; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.78; p Conclusion: This SWAT adds to the growing evidence base for whether pens are effective as an incentive for retention, and indicates their potential effectiveness. Registration: KReBS trial registered on 20 February 2019, ID ISRCTN87127065; SWAT registered on 1 April 2019, ID SWAT92.

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: This was a 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 with a postal recruitment pack to improve randomisation rate (primary outcome) into the host Gentle Years Yoga trial in older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant recruited. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return data using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: 818 potential host trial participants included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the likelihood of being randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). There was evidence of improved screening return rates (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22) but not randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57) in those sent £5 (n=409) compared with those not sent £5 (n=409). No significant interaction effects between the interventions were observed. The cost per additional participant recruited was £32 for the pen and £1000 for the £5 incentive. Conclusion: Including a small, monetary incentive encouraged increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation but did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens are cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit. Further studies may be required.

Background: Several studies have investigated whether personalising trial documentation can aid recruitment and retention. We did a ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT) evaluating the effectiveness of a personalised text message compared to a non-personalised text message, on the retention rate in a large orthopaedic trial. Methods: The SWAT was embedded in the Knee Replacement Bandaging Study (KReBS) trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of 12-month questionnaires returned. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of questionnaires completed and time to questionnaire return. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) are presented, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Results: In total, 1465 participants were included in the SWAT. In the personalised group, 644/723 (89.1%) of participants returned a questionnaire, compared to 654/742 (88.1%) in the non-personalised group. The absolute difference in return rate was 0.9% (95% CI: -2.3% to 4.2%; p=0.57). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the likelihood of returning a questionnaire (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.51; p=0.61), the likelihood of returning a complete questionnaire (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.51; p=0.50) nor in time to return (HR 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.17; p=0.40). Conclusion: This SWAT adds to the growing evidence base for whether personalised text messages are effective. Registration: ISRCTN87127065 (20/02/2017); SWAT 35 (01/12/2015)

Background: Use of a person's name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient's name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires.Methods: Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost.Results: Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message.Conclusion: Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message.Trial Registration: GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family members, or others, often assume the role of informal (unpaid) carers of people with chronic illnesses. Care-giving, however, can impact profoundly on the quality of life of carers and can cause carer worry, stress and guilt. Implementing interventions that positively affect the lives of carers is important; however, carers as a group are often difficult to reach. We embedded a study within a pilot-feasibility trial of a mindfulness based intervention to determine and prioritise the key motivators and challenges influencing informal carers’ decisions for participating in a trial. Methods: We used a multi-method approach involving interviews with participants from a ‘host trial’ and data from systematic reviews to develop a survey that was distributed to informal carers in Ireland. The survey consisted of 28 motivator and 17 challenge statements. Participants rated how important they thought each statement was when deciding to take part in a trial on a 5-point Likert Scale. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each statement and arranged in descending order to provide the priority lists. Results: Thirty-six carers responded to the survey. Helping to create awareness about carers was the top ranked motivator, followed by four study design statements related to the time at which the study occurs, the study location, format of delivery and venue. The least important motivator related to how carers were invited to take part in a study. Difficulties in planning due to the caring role emerged as the most important challenge, followed by being unable to leave the care recipient on his/her own. Conclusions: Insight into decision-making for research participation will assist trial developers tailor trial processes for informal carer populations. We recommend that trialists should consider these motivators and challenges when designing future trials involving informal carers so as to enhance trial feasibility and success.

Background: Several studies have investigated whether personalising trial documentation can aid recruitment and retention. We did a ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT) evaluating the effectiveness of a personalised text message compared to a non-personalised text message, on the retention rate in a large orthopaedic trial. Methods: The SWAT was embedded in the Knee Replacement Bandaging Study (KReBS) trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of 12-month questionnaires returned. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of questionnaires completed and time to questionnaire return. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) are presented, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Results: In total, 1465 participants were included in the SWAT. In the personalised group, 644/723 (89.1%) of participants returned a questionnaire, compared to 654/742 (88.1%) in the non-personalised group. The absolute difference in return rate was 0.9% (95% CI: -2.3% to 4.2%; p=0.57). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the likelihood of returning a questionnaire (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.51; p=0.61), the likelihood of returning a complete questionnaire (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.51; p=0.50) nor in time to return (HR 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.17; p=0.40). Conclusion: This SWAT adds to the growing evidence base for whether personalised text messages are effective. Registration: ISRCTN87127065 (20/02/2017); SWAT 35 (01/12/2015)

Background: We did a ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT), evaluating the effectiveness of the inclusion of a pen with a postal questionnaire, compared to no pen being included, on the retention rate in a large orthopaedic trial. Methods: The SWAT was embedded in the KReBS trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of 12-month questionnaires returned. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of questionnaires completed and time to questionnaire return. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) are presented, with associated 95% confidence intervals and p-values. Results: In total, 2306 participants were randomised into the SWAT. In the pen group, 1020/1146 (89.0%) of participants returned a questionnaire, compared to 982/1147 (85.6%) in the no pen group. The absolute difference in questionnaire return rate was 3.4% (95% CI: 0.7% to 6.1%; p=0.01). There were statistically significant differences in questionnaire return rate (OR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.72; p=0.02), questionnaire completion rate (OR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.76; p Conclusion: This SWAT adds to the growing evidence base for whether pens are effective as an incentive for retention, and indicates their potential effectiveness. Registration: KReBS trial registered on 20 February 2019, ID ISRCTN87127065; SWAT registered on 1 April 2019, ID SWAT92.

Introduction: Recruitment into clinical trials is a common challenge experienced by healthcare researchers. Currently, there is little evidence regarding strategies to improve recruitment into clinical trials. However, preliminary research suggests the personalisation of study invitation letters may increase recruitment rates. As such, there is a need to investigate the effectiveness of personalisation strategies on trial recruitment rates. This study within a trial (SWAT) will investigate the effect of personalised versus non-personalised study invitation letters on recruitment rates into the host trial ENGAGE, a feasibility study of an internet-administered, guided, Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) based self-help intervention for parents of children previously treated for cancer. Methods: An embedded randomised controlled trial (RCT) will investigate the effectiveness of a personalised study invitation letter including the potential participant’s name and address compared with a standard, non-personalised letter without name or address, on participant recruitment rates into the ENGAGE study. The primary outcome is differences in the proportion of participants recruited, examined using logistic regression. Results will be reported as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Discussion: Even moderate effects of the personalisation of study invitation letters on recruitment rates could be of significant value by shortening study length, saving resources, and providing a faster answer to the clinical question posed by the study. This protocol can be used as a template for other researchers who wish to contribute to the evidence base for trial decision-making, by embedding a similar SWAT into their trial. Trial registration: ISRCTN 57233429; ISRCTN 18404129; SWAT 112, Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (2018 OCT 1 1231).

Abstract Background Few interventions are proven to increase recruitment in clinical trials. Recruitment to RESTART, a randomised controlled trial of secondary prevention after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage, has been slower than expected. Therefore, we sought to investigate an intervention to boost recruitment to RESTART. Methods/design We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention to increase recruitment, embedded within the RESTART trial. The primary objective was to investigate if the PRIME complex intervention (a recruitment co-ordinator who conducts a recruitment review, provides access to bespoke stroke audit data exports, and conducts a follow-up review after 6 months) increases the recruitment rate to RESTART. We included 72 hospital sites located in England, Wales, or Scotland that were active in RESTART in June 2015. All sites began in the control state and were allocated using block randomisation stratified by hospital location (Scotland versus England/Wales) to start the complex intervention in one of 12 different months. The primary outcome was the number of patients randomised into RESTART per month per site. We quantified the effect of the complex intervention on the primary outcome using a negative binomial, mixed model adjusting for site, December/January months, site location, and background time trends in recruitment rate. Results We recruited and randomised 72 sites and recorded their monthly recruitment to RESTART over 24 months (March 2015 to February 2017 inclusive), providing 1728 site-months of observations for the primary analysis. The adjusted rate ratio for the number of patients randomised per month after allocation to the PRIME complex intervention versus control time before allocation to the PRIME complex intervention was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.03, p = 0.87). Although two thirds of respondents to the 6-month follow-up questionnaire agreed that the audit reports were useful, only six patients were reported to have been randomised using the audit reports. Respondents frequently reported resource and time pressures as being key barriers to running the audit reports. Conclusion The PRIME complex intervention did not significantly improve the recruitment rate to RESTART. Further research is needed to establish if PRIME might be beneficial at an earlier stage in a prevention trial or for prevention dilemmas that arise more often in clinical practice.

Background/Aims Recruitment to trials of intervention for older people who fall is challenging. Evidence suggests that the word falls has negative connotations for older people, and this may present a barrier to engaging with trials in this area. We therefore tested whether a participant information sheet that minimised reference to falls could improve recruitment rates. Methods We conducted a study within a trial, embedded within a randomised controlled trial of vitamin K versus placebo to improve postural sway in patients aged 65 and over with a history of falls. Potential participants were identified from primary care lists in 14 practices and were randomised to receive either a standard participant information sheet or an information sheet minimising use of the word falls, instead focussing on maintenance of health, fitness and balance. The primary outcome for this embedded trial was the proportion of responses expressing interest in participating received in each arm. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of those contacted attending a screening visit, consenting at screening, and the proportion contacted who were randomised into the main trial. Results In all, 4145 invitations were sent, with an overall response rate of 444 (10.7%). In all, 2148 individuals received the new information sheet (minimising reference to falls); 1997 received the standard information sheet. There was no statistically significant difference in response rate between those individuals sent the new information sheet and those sent the standard information sheet (10.1% vs 11.4%; difference 1.3% (95% confidence interval −0.6% to 3.2%); p = 0.19). Similarly, we found no statistically significant difference between the percentage of those who attended and consented at screening in the two groups (2.1% vs 2.7%; difference 0.6% (95% confidence interval: –0.4% to 1.6%); p = 0.20), and no statistically significant difference between the percentage randomised in the two groups (2.0% vs 2.6%; difference 0.6% (95% confidence interval −0.4% to 1.6%); p = 0.20) Conclusions Use of a participant information sheet minimising reference to falls did not lead to a greater response rate in this trial targeting older people with a history of falls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few interventions are proven to increase recruitment in clinical trials. Recruitment to RESTART, a randomised controlled trial of secondary prevention after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage, has been slower than expected. Therefore, we sought to investigate an intervention to boost recruitment to RESTART.Methods/design: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention to increase recruitment, embedded within the RESTART trial. The primary objective was to investigate if the PRIME complex intervention (a recruitment co-ordinator who conducts a recruitment review, provides access to bespoke stroke audit data exports, and conducts a follow-up review after 6 months) increases the recruitment rate to RESTART. We included 72 hospital sites located in England, Wales, or Scotland that were active in RESTART in June 2015. All sites began in the control state and were allocated using block randomisation stratified by hospital location (Scotland versus England/Wales) to start the complex intervention in one of 12 different months. The primary outcome was the number of patients randomised into RESTART per month per site. We quantified the effect of the complex intervention on the primary outcome using a negative binomial, mixed model adjusting for site, December/January months, site location, and background time trends in recruitment rate.Results: We recruited and randomised 72 sites and recorded their monthly recruitment to RESTART over 24 months (March 2015 to February 2017 inclusive), providing 1728 site-months of observations for the primary analysis. The adjusted rate ratio for the number of patients randomised per month after allocation to the PRIME complex intervention versus control time before allocation to the PRIME complex intervention was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.03, p = 0.87). Although two thirds of respondents to the 6-month follow-up questionnaire agreed that the audit reports were useful, only six patients were reported to have been randomised using the audit reports. Respondents frequently reported resource and time pressures as being key barriers to running the audit reports.Conclusion: The PRIME complex intervention did not significantly improve the recruitment rate to RESTART. Further research is needed to establish if PRIME might be beneficial at an earlier stage in a prevention trial or for prevention dilemmas that arise more often in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research into methods to boost recruitment has been identified as the highest priority for randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodological research in the United Kingdom. Slow recruitment delays the delivery of research and inflates costs. Using electronic patient records has been shown to boost recruitment to ongoing RCTs in primary care by identifying potentially eligible participants, but this approach remains relatively unexplored in secondary care, and for stroke in particular.Methods/design: The REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART; ISRCTN71907627) is an ongoing RCT of secondary prevention after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage. Promoting Recruitment using Information Management Efficiently (PRIME) is a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention to help RESTART sites increase their recruitment and attain their own target numbers of participants. Seventy-two hospital sites that were located in England, Wales or Scotland and were active in RESTART in June 2015 opted into PRIME. Sites were randomly allocated (using a computer-generated block randomisation algorithm, stratified by hospital location in Scotland vs. England/Wales) to one of 12 months in which the intervention would be delivered. All sites began in the control state. The intervention was delivered by a recruitment co-ordinator via a teleconference with each site. The intervention involved discussing recruitment strategies, providing software for each site to extract from their own stroke audit data lists of patients who were potentially eligible for RESTART, and a second teleconference to review progress 6 months later. The recruitment co-ordinator was blinded to the timing of the intervention until 2 months before it was due at a site. Staff at RESTART sites were blinded to the nature and timing of the intervention. The primary outcome is the total number of patients randomised into RESTART per month per site and will be analysed in a negative binomial generalised linear mixed model. PRIME began in September 2015. The last intervention was delivered in August 2016. Six-month follow-up will be complete in February 2017.Discussion: The final results of PRIME will be analysed and disseminated in 2017.Trial Registration: The PRIME study was registered in the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) repository (SWAT22) on 23 December 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nearly 1 in 3 clinical trials end prematurely due to underenrollment. Strategies to enhance recruitment are often implemented without scientific rigor to evaluate efficacy. Evidence-based, cost-effective behavioral economic strategies designed to influence decision-making may be useful to promote clinical trial enrollment., Objective: This study evaluated 2 behavioral economic strategies to improve enrollment and retention rates across 4 clinical trials: information provision (IP) and contingency management (CM; ie, lottery). IP targets descriptive and injunctive norms about participating in research and CM provides participants incentives to reinforce a target behavior., Methods: A sample of 212 participants was enrolled across 4 clinical trials focused on tobacco use: 2 focused on HIV and 2 focused on neuroimaging. The CM condition included a lottery: for each study visit completed, participants received 5 "draws" from a bowl containing 500 "chips" valued at US $0, US $1, US $5, or US $100. In the IP condition, text messages that targeted injunctive norms about research (eg, "Many find it a rewarding way to advance science and be part of a community") were sent through the Way to Health platform before all study visits. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 conditions: IP, CM, IP+CM, or standard recruitment (SR). We performed logistic regression, controlling for sex and study, with condition as a between-subject predictor. Outcomes were the percentage of participants who attended a final eligibility visit (primary), met intent-to-treat (ITT) criteria (secondary), and completed the study (secondary). Recruitment was evaluated by the percentage of participants who attended a final eligibility visit, enrollment by ITT status, and retention by the percentage of participants who completed the study., Results: Rates of attending the eligibility visit and meeting ITT status were 58.9% (33/56) and 33.9% (19/56) for IP+CM; 45.5% (25/55) and 18.2% (10/55) for IP only; 41.5% (22/53) and 18.9% (10/53) for CM only; and 37.5% (18/48) and 12.5% (6/48) for SR, respectively. In the logistic regression, females were more likely to meet ITT status than males (odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-5.7; P=.01). The IP+CM group was twice as likely to attend the final eligibility visit than the SR group (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.2; P=.04). The IP+CM group was also significantly more likely to reach ITT status than the SR condition (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.3-11.1; P=.01). Those who received any active intervention (IP, CM, or IP+CM) had a higher study completion rate (33/53, 63.5%) compared to those who received SR (5/12, 41.7%), but this difference was not significant (P=.26)., Conclusions: Combining IP and CM strategies may motivate participants to participate in research and improve recruitment and retention rates. Evidence from this study provides preliminary support for the utility of behavioral economics strategies to improve enrollment and reduce attrition in clinical trials., (©Brittney Greene, Leah Bernardo, Morgan Thompson, James Loughead, Rebecca Ashare. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 21.07.2023.)

Background: Poor response rates to follow-up questionnaires can adversely affect the progress of a randomised controlled trial and the validity of its results. This embedded 'study within a trial' aimed to investigate the impact of including a pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire completed by the trial participants on the response rates to this questionnaire., Methods: This study was a two-armed randomised controlled trial nested in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial. Participants in the intervention group of the GYY trial were allocated 1:1 using simple randomisation to either receive a pen (intervention) or no pen with their 3-month questionnaire (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire who returned it. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, proportion of participants sent a reminder to return the questionnaire, and completeness of the questionnaire. Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, time to return by Cox Proportional Hazards regression and number of items completed by linear regression., Results: There were 111 participants randomised to the pen group and 118 to the no pen group who were sent a 3-month questionnaire. There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (pen 107 (96.4%), no pen 117 (99.2%); OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). Furthermore, there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in terms of time to return the questionnaire (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47), the proportion of participants sent a reminder (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60) nor the number of items completed (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07)., Conclusion: The inclusion of a pen with the postal 3-month follow-up questionnaire did not have a statistically significant effect on response rate., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Fairhurst C et al.)

Background: Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants. Methods: This is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial ('EQUIP') recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation. Results: Thirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome) , restructuring the physical environment , material incentive (behaviour) and punishment . Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Racine E et al.)

Background: Recruitment rates in multi-centre randomised trials often fall below target recruitment rates, causing problems for study outcomes. The Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) Programme, established by the All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research in collaboration with the Medical Research Council Network of Hubs in the United Kingdom and others, is developing methods for evaluating aspects of trial methodology through the conduct of research within research. A recently published design for a SWAT-1 provides a protocol for evaluating the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator on recruitment in multi-centre trials. Methods: Using the SWAT-1 design, the effect of a site visit, with the sole purpose of discussing trial recruitment, on recruitment rates in a large multicentre trial in the Republic of Ireland was evaluated. A controlled before and after intervention comparison was used, where the date of the site visit provides the time point for the intervention, and for the comparison to control sites. Site A received the intervention. Site B and Site C acted as the controls. Z-scores for proportions were calculated to determine within site recruitment differences. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine between site recruitment differences. Results: Recruitment rates were increased in Site A post-intervention (17% and 14% percentage point increases at 1 and 3 months, respectively). No differences in recruitment occurred in Site B or in Site C. Comparing between site differences, at 3 months post-intervention, a statistically significant difference was detected in favour of higher recruitment in Site A (34% versus 25%; odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.26). Conclusions: This is the first reported example of a study in the SWAT programme. It provides evidence that a site visit, combined with a scheduled meeting, increases recruitment in a clinical trial. Using this example, other researchers might be encouraged to consider conducting a similar study, allowing the findings of future SWAT-1s to be compared and combined, so that higher level evidence on the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator can be obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor response rates to follow-up questionnaires can adversely affect the progress of a randomised controlled trial and the validity of its results. This embedded 'study within a trial' aimed to investigate the impact of including a pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire completed by the trial participants on the response rates to this questionnaire., Methods: This study was a two-armed randomised controlled trial nested in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial. Participants in the intervention group of the GYY trial were allocated 1:1 using simple randomisation to either receive a pen (intervention) or no pen with their 3-month questionnaire (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire who returned it. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, proportion of participants sent a reminder to return the questionnaire, and completeness of the questionnaire. Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, time to return by Cox Proportional hazards regression and number of items completed by linear regression., Results: There were 111 participants randomised to the pen group and 118 to the no pen group who were sent a 3-month questionnaire. There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (pen 107 (96.4%), no pen 117 (99.2%); OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). Furthermore, there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in terms of time to return the questionnaire (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47), the proportion of participants sent a reminder (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60) nor the number of items completed (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI-0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07)., Conclusion: The inclusion of a pen with the postal 3-month follow-up questionnaire did not have a statistically significant effect on response rate., Competing Interests: Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed.