CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Ethics in Clinical ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation Science

How evidence based are recruitment strategies to randomized controlled trials in primary care? Experience from seven studies

Open access
Foy, R·2003·Family Practice
DOI 10.1093/fampra/20.1.83
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Failure to recruit adequate numbers of participants represents a major barrier to the completion of randomized controlled trials in primary care and is associated with substantial opportunity costs. However, uncertainty exists regarding the relative effectiveness of different methods to promote recruitment. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate the proportion of strategies used to promote patient recruitment to randomized controlled trials in primary care that are evidence based. METHODS: Investigators from seven primary care-based clinical trials of dyspepsia management aiming to recruit a total of 6070 patients participated. Following a survey of trial organization, a Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on levels of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions or organizational characteristics in influencing recruitment. The main outcome measures were the proportions of interventions or organizational characteristics for influencing patient recruitment that are based upon randomized controlled trials, on convincing non-experimental evidence or meeting neither of these criteria. RESULTS: Out of a total of 56 interventions used across the trials, 35 (63%) were judged as evidence based. Out of a total of 29 organizational characteristics possessed by the trials, five (17%) were judged as evidence based. Across the seven dyspepsia trials, the presence of 'favourable' organizational characteristics appeared to be important contributors towards successful recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of interventions and organizational characteristics with the potential to promote recruitment were used or possessed by seven primary care trials. Many were not evidence based. Our experience suggests that organizational characteristics could be more influential in trial recruitment than the use of specific interventions. Given the costs of primary care-based trials, researchers need more rigorous evidence to inform recruitment strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/20.1.83

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The content, quantity, and mode of delivery of consent information can affect trial recruitment; participant comprehension, anxiety, and retention rates; and costs.

    “The content, quantity, and mode of delivery of consent information can affect trial recruitment; participant comprehension, anxiety, and retention rates; and costs.207 486 487 488 489”

    From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [486]

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Foy, R.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Foy, R
ORCID
Foy, R
Venue
Family Practice
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-01-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
83-92
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
DOI
10.1093/fampra/20.1.83
OpenAlex
W2141123937
Cited by
160
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
patient recruitment, randomized controlled trials, primary care, trial organization, organizational characteristics, dyspepsia management, Delphi consensus
MeSH terms
Dyspepsia, Humans, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review