Original articlesBarriers to Participation in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
Introduction
The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely accepted as the most powerful research method for minimising bias when evaluating health technologies. However, delays and problems with recruitment of clinicians and patient participants continue to have a major impact on costs and workload of trials 1, 2, and on their subsequent value. The scale of the problem is not well documented, but a survey of recruitment amongst a cohort of 41 randomised controlled trials in the USA found that 34% recruited less than 75% of their planned sample [3]. The effect of reducing the sample size is to reduce the statistical power of the study, and is one of the main reasons for abandoning trials early 2, 4, 5, 6.
Previous reviews of barriers to recruitment have taken a traditional approach, rather than using a systematic methodology 1, 2, in which the selection, evaluation and inclusion criteria are not explicitly pre-defined. For this reason, such reviews may be biased. We report a systematic literature review of barriers to clinician and patient participation in randomised trials, and make recommendations for improving the conduct of trials based on the findings.
Section snippets
Method
An initial systematic search of Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for the period 1986 to 1996 identified 9732 references of possible relevance to problems associated with the design, conduct, analysis or costs of a trial: of these, 265 papers identified clinician participation or patient participation as being an important issue. From this sub-set, all primary research papers were selected which reported findings relating to problems with recruitment of clinicians or patients to clinical trials: only
Results
Brief descriptions of all the reports included in the review are presented in Table 1.
Discussion
Our review took a systematic approach designed to be less selective and therefore less biased than other less rigorous approaches [85]. The review identified many barriers to clinician and patient recruitment to randomised controlled trials confirming the persistent problems identified in other apparently less systematically conducted work 1, 2, 86.
The findings of our review should be read with some caution, however. In particular, several sources of potential bias are inherent in the material
Acknowledgements
Thanks to David Stephen and Neil Scott for assistance in reviewing the references, to Louise Smith for secretarial help, and to Sandra Kaiuka and Iain Colthart who conducted the original search and initial screening of papers. Carl Counsell was funded as a Wellcome Trust Training Fellow. The literature review was funded by the NHS Executive R&D Research Methodology Programme, and the Health Services Research Unit is core-funded by the Scottish Office Department of Health. However, the views
References (86)
- et al.
The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research
Am J Med
(1996) - et al.
Enrollment in clinical trialsInstitutional factors affecting enrollment in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST)
Control Clin Trials
(1992) - et al.
Issues of recruitment, retention, and compliance in community-based clinical trials with traditionally underserved populations
Appl Nurs Res
(1995) - et al.
Reasons for declining participation in a prospective randomized trial to determine the optimum mode of delivery of the preterm breech
Control Clin Trials
(1990) - et al.
Patient perception of a long-term clinical trialExperience using a close-out questionnaire in the Studies of Left Ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD) trial
Control Clin Trials
(1994) Integrating conflicting professional rolesPhysician participation in randomized clinical trials
Soc Sci Med
(1992)- et al.
Informed consent in European Multicentre randomised clinical trials—Are patients really informed?
Eur J Cancer
(1994) - et al.
Informed versus randomised consent to clinical trials
Lancet
(1995) - et al.
Who say yes? Identifying selection biases in a psychosocial intervention study of multiple sclerosis
Soc Sci Med
(1995) - et al.
Reasons related to adherence in community-based field studies
Patient Education & Counselling
(1992)