Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: A systematic map
Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: A systematic map
Background: Recruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools such as social media, data mining, e-mail or text messaging could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years.
Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated.
Results: We identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. Key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases, and mental health. Few studies focused on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people’s attitudes towards the use of digital tools.
Conclusions: This systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research.
Registration: Not registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project’s Advisory Board.
Clinical trial management; clinical trial efficiency; recruitment strategies; retention strategies; participant identification and recruitment; online recruitment; participant retention; digital tools; electronic tools; systematic map
Frampton, Geoffrey
26c6163c-3428-45b8-b8b9-92091ff6c69f
Shepherd, Jonathan
dfbca97a-9307-4eee-bdf7-e27bcb02bc67
Pickett, Karen
1bac9d88-da29-4a3e-9fd2-e469f129f963
Griffiths, Gareth
7fd300c0-d279-4ff6-842d-aa1f2b9b864d
Wyatt, Jeremy
8361be5a-fca9-4acf-b3d2-7ce04126f468
5 June 2020
Frampton, Geoffrey
26c6163c-3428-45b8-b8b9-92091ff6c69f
Shepherd, Jonathan
dfbca97a-9307-4eee-bdf7-e27bcb02bc67
Pickett, Karen
1bac9d88-da29-4a3e-9fd2-e469f129f963
Griffiths, Gareth
7fd300c0-d279-4ff6-842d-aa1f2b9b864d
Wyatt, Jeremy
8361be5a-fca9-4acf-b3d2-7ce04126f468
Frampton, Geoffrey, Shepherd, Jonathan, Pickett, Karen, Griffiths, Gareth and Wyatt, Jeremy
(2020)
Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: A systematic map.
Trials, 21, [478].
(doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3).
Abstract
Background: Recruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools such as social media, data mining, e-mail or text messaging could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years.
Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated.
Results: We identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. Key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases, and mental health. Few studies focused on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people’s attitudes towards the use of digital tools.
Conclusions: This systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research.
Registration: Not registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project’s Advisory Board.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 28 April 2020
Published date: 5 June 2020
Keywords:
Clinical trial management; clinical trial efficiency; recruitment strategies; retention strategies; participant identification and recruitment; online recruitment; participant retention; digital tools; electronic tools; systematic map
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 440769
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/440769
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: d462b7ab-af16-4081-9a5a-b8930f9e7ecf
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 15 May 2020 16:57
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:40
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Jeremy Wyatt
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics