Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37403173›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2023

Providing multimedia information to children and young people increases recruitment to trials: pre-planned meta-analysis of SWATs.

Peter Knapp, Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Jacqueline Martin-Kerry, Rebecca Sheridan, Jenny Roche, Elizabeth Coleman, Peter Bower, Steven Higgins, Catherine Stones, Jonathan Graffy and 19 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
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

29 authors.

Peter KnappDepartment of Health Sciences & the Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK. peter.knapp@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5904-8699
Thirimon Moe-ByrneDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2827-9715
Jacqueline Martin-KerryDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9299-1360
Rebecca SheridanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7715-1224
Jenny RocheYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1822-9519
Elizabeth ColemanYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4210-1865
Peter BowerCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9558-3349
Steven HigginsSchool of Education, University of Durham, Durham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0314-4846
Catherine StonesSchool of Design, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9797-8587
Jonathan Graffy, Cambridge, UK.
Jenny PrestonInstitute of Child Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4800-234X
Carrol GambleDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3021-1955
Bridget YoungDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6041-9901
Daniel PerryNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Annegret Dahlmann-NoorMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mohamed AbbasMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Payal KhandelwalBedfordshire Community Health Services, Bedford, UK.
Siobhan LuddenNIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Augusto Azuara-BlancoQueens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Emma McConnellQueens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Nicky MandallTameside NHS Acute Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Anna LawsonClinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Chris A RogersTrials Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Helena J M SmarttTrials Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rachael HeysTrials Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Simon R StonesEnvision Pharma Group, Wilmslow, UK.
Danielle Horton Taylor, London, UK.
Sophie Ainsworth, Liverpool, UK.
Jenny Ainsworth, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28028Department of Health 14/21/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials are often beset by problems with poor recruitment and retention. Information to support decisions on trial participation is usually provided as printed participant information sheets (PIS), which are often long, technical, and unappealing. Multimedia information (MMI), including animations and videos, may be a valuable alternative or complement to a PIS. The Trials Engagement in Children and Adolescents (TRECA) study compared MMI to PIS to investigate the effects on participant recruitment, retention, and quality of decision-making.

methodsWe undertook six SWATs (Study Within A Trial) within a series of host trials recruiting children and young people. Potential participants in the host trials were randomly allocated to receive MMI-only, PIS-only, or combined MMI + PIS. We recorded the rates of recruitment and retention (varying between 6 and 26 weeks post-randomisation) in each host trial. Potential participants approached about each host trial were asked to complete a nine-item Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) to indicate their evaluation of the information and their reasons for participation/non-participation. Odds ratios were calculated and combined in a meta-analysis.

resultsData from 3/6 SWATs for which it was possible were combined in a meta-analysis (n = 1758). Potential participants allocated to MMI-only were more likely to be recruited to the host trial than those allocated to PIS-only (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.05, 2.28; p = 0.03). Those allocated to combined MMI + PIS compared to PIS-only were no more likely to be recruited to the host trial (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53, 1.50; p = 0.67). Providing MMI rather than PIS did not impact on DMQ scores. Once children and young people had been recruited to host trials, their trial retention rates did not differ according to intervention allocation.

conclusionsProviding MMI-only increased the trial recruitment rate compared to PIS-only but did not affect DMQ scores. Combined MMI + PIS instead of PIS had no effect on recruitment or retention. MMIs are a useful tool for trial recruitment in children and young people, and they could reduce trial recruitment periods.

Indexed as

MultimediaAdolescentChildHumansPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesChildrenConsentMultimedia informationRecruitmentRetentionTrial

Identifiers

PMID37403173
PMCPMC10320935

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.