Keywords
Trainee Principal Investigator, TPi, Nudge, Swat, Recruitment, Education
This article is included in the Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) collection.
Trainee Principal Investigator, TPi, Nudge, Swat, Recruitment, Education
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard when evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of health care interventions. Unfortunately, a significant number of well-designed RCTs struggle with the recruitment of participants and subsequently fail to reach their target sample size1.
Several hypothetical and real-life studies on methods to improve participant recruitment to RCTs have been conducted with mixed results, with only a minority targeting recruiters to the trial2–5. The results of a survey of clinical trials units in the UK concluded that priorities for evaluation included training site staff, methods of communication with patients and incentivising site staff6.
The aim of this real-life study is to assess the effects of targeting healthcare professional recruiters with an educational intervention with or without positive reinforcement on participant recruitment. This study within a trial (SWAT) will test two different methods of enhancing recruitment: introducing an enhanced trainee principal investigators (TPI) package, and personalised email nudges (see Extended data7) to healthcare professionals involved in patient recruitment. The SWAT will be implemented in a large, UK, multicentre orthopaedic RCT, the WHiTE 8 COPAL trial. The interventions have both been used in current orthopaedic trials, but their effects on recruitment have previously not been investigated.
This will be a multicentre, 2×2 factorial RCT run between August 2018 and October 2019 with random allocation of the recruiting centre to one of four groups:
Group 1: Enhanced TPI package.
Group 2: Use of a personalised email nudge to each recruiter.
Group 3: Enhanced TPI package and use of a personalised email nudge to each recruiter.
Group 4: Usual practice (neither the enhanced TPI nor personalised email nudge).
Full details of each intervention have been provided as Extended data7 and are summarised in Table 1. The consent to participate as a TPI and interventions will be implemented by the White 8 Research Fellow (author N.A.). Consent materials are also available as Extended data7.
As in many SWATs, a power calculation was not undertaken as the number of participating sites is fixed and driven by the needs of the host trial. All WHiTE centres planned to be recruiting to the WHiTE 8 trial will be included, except the centre in which N.A. is based. We anticipate a minimum of 20 centres being involved in recruiting. Trial interventions will only be discontinued if the host trial (WHiTE 8 Copal) is discontinued.
The WHiTE centres will be randomised by minimisation on a rolling basis as sites become activated to one of the four groups to balance key baseline characteristics. Self-reported site feasibility questionnaires completed by the recruitment centres will be used to collect the information required for the minimisation. Minimisation will be based on the following factors:
1. Cluster size (number of intracapsular hip fractures presenting in the previous year, cut at the median <300 or ≥300)
2. High vs Low recruiting centres (<9 or ≥9 per month based on previous RCTs run within WHiTE Cohort)
3. Co-recruitment to WHiTE 5 (yes/no) (Another RCT using the same patient population running at a few of the recruitment sites)
This randomisation will be performed using specialist computer software, MinimPy (Saghaei and Saghaei, 2011). This is an open trial and participating sites, the data analyst nor trial team will be blind to allocation.
The primary outcome is the total number of patients recruited in the first 6 months from a site opening to recruitment to the WHiTE 8 COPAL trial.
The secondary outcomes are: conversion rate from screened population collected monthly from the central recruitment database (coordinated by the Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit); and the time taken to implement each intervention from commencing recruitment in each centre.
The trainee’s perspective of their role will be collected through the TPI survey (available as Extended data7 at the end of the SWAT in each centre. The Research Fellow will keep a record of the time taken delivering the TPI education intervention and a log of communication for peer-support during the period of the SWAT to inform future implementation.
The University of York Health Sciences Ethics Committee has approved this study within a trial. Ethics Approval ID: HSRGC/2018/266/C. Substantive protocol amendments will be sought approval through then university ethics committee.
This SWAT is registered with ISRCTN (11600053) and is embedded in the WHITE 8 Copal trial (ISRCTN 15606075).
This SWAT is also registered to the SWAT repository store as part of the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research (SWAT 67).
Analysis will be conducted in STATA v15 on an intention-to-treat basis, including all sites in the group they were originally allocated to regardless of deviations based on non-compliance. Statistical significance will be assessed using logistic regression two-sided statistical tests at the 5% significance level. The trial will be reported to CONSORT guidelines, and a flow diagram will present the progression of sites through the trial.
Baseline data relating to the sites (including the minimisation factors) will be summarised for the four groups as randomised and as analysed to assess whether possible loss-to-follow-up has introduced selection bias. Continuous data will be presented using descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum), while categorical data will be given as counts and percentages. No formal statistical comparison of baseline data will be undertaken between the four groups.
The number of participants recruited per site will be summarised. A Poisson regression model, containing the two interventions (Enhanced TPI and Email Nudge) and the minimisation factors (cluster size, and number recruited per month will be included in their continuous form) will be undertaken. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) will be obtained from this model. The presence of an interaction between the two interventions will also be tested by including an interaction term in the model.
Feasibility outcomes, such as the time required to run the education intervention and communication time and methods used for the peer support aspect of the intervention, will be reported descriptively.
A data monitoring committee will not be used as this a trial involving recruiters and patient safety will not be affected by conducting this trial. No formal auditing of trial procedure will take place.
If successful, we would like to show that these can be feasibly implemented in future RCTs with additional benefit of reaching targeted sample sizes within the planned recruitment timeline due to increased recruitment rates.
Results of this study will be form part of a PhD thesis, published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and be shared with recruiting centres and clinical trials units.
Open Science Framework: Protocol for a factorial randomised controlled trial, embedded within WHiTE 8 COPAL, of an Enhanced Trainee Principal Investigator Package and Additional Digital Nudge to increase recruitment rates. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FZ4JH7.
This project contains the following extended data:
Open Science Framework: SPIRIT checklist for article ‘Protocol for a factorial randomised controlled trial, embedded within WHiTE 8 COPAL, of an Enhanced Trainee Principal Investigator Package and Additional Digital Nudge to increase recruitment rates’. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FZ4JH7.
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Trial management and design
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
References
1. Education section - Studies Within A Trial (SWAT).J Evid Based Med. 2012; 5 (1): 44-5 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: I am one of the people responsible for the SWAT initiative and my departments hosts the SWAT repository.
Reviewer Expertise: Clinical trials; systematic reviews; research methodology.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 22 Jul 19 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)