Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32498690›Full record

ReviewTrials2020

Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.

Geoff K Frampton, Jonathan Shepherd, Karen Pickett, Gareth Griffiths, Jeremy C Wyatt

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Geoff K FramptonSouthampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK. gkf1@southampton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2005-0497
Jonathan ShepherdSouthampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Karen PickettSouthampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Gareth GriffithsSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton and Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Jeremy C WyattWessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
University of Southampton · GBSouthampton General Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsWe 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. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed 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.

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionEfficiency, OrganizationalHealth Care SurveysHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial MediaSoftwareStakeholder ParticipationText MessagingUnited KingdomClinical trial efficiencyClinical trial managementDigital toolsElectronic toolsOnline recruitmentParticipant identification and recruitmentParticipant retentionRecruitment strategiesRetention strategiesSystematic map

Identifiers

PMID32498690
PMCPMC7273688
OpenAlexW3033583499

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.