CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Social Media in Health EducationEthics in Clinical ResearchMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 186 of the 190 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Frampton, Geoff K., Shepherd, Jonathan, Pickett, Karen, Griffiths, Gareth, Wyatt, Jeremy C.·2020·Trials
DOI 10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3PMC PMC7273688
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Recruiting 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. 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. 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. 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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3

Cites

186 of 186 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Eligibility screening flow diagram
Fig. 1 Eligibility screening flow diagramCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Geographical and temporal distribution of the studies. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole year
Fig. 2 Geographical and temporal distribution of the studies. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole yearCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Health topics assessed in studies of digital tools for recruitment and/or retention
Fig. 3 Health topics assessed in studies of digital tools for recruitment and/or retentionCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Distribution of the most frequently-studied health topics in relation to publication year. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole year
Fig. 4 Distribution of the most frequently-studied health topics in relation to publication year. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole yearCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Distribution of studies of digital tools for recruitment and/or retention in relation to publication year. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole year
Fig. 5 Distribution of studies of digital tools for recruitment and/or retention in relation to publication year. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole yearCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Overview of digital approaches and tools for recruitment
Fig. 6 Overview of digital approaches and tools for recruitmentCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Types of digital recruitment tools studied in relation to publication year. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole year
Fig. 7 Types of digital recruitment tools studied in relation to publication year. Data from 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole yearCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Overview of digital approaches and tools for retention
Fig. 8 Overview of digital approaches and tools for retentionCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Types of digital retention tools studied in relation to publication year. Data for 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole year
Fig. 9 Types of digital retention tools studied in relation to publication year. Data for 2018 are excluded as they are not available for the whole yearCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 10 Outcomes assessed in studies of digital tools for recruitment and/or retention
Fig. 10 Outcomes assessed in studies of digital tools for recruitment and/or retentionCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 190 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Lopienski K. Retention in clinical trials—keeping patients on protocols: forte research systems; 2015. Available from: https://forteresearch.com/news/infographic/infographic-retention-in-clinical-trials-keeping-patients-on-protocols/.
  2. Frampton GK, Shepherd J. Ambiguity of study population analysis and reporting in asthma clinical trials. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102(Suppl 6):76–7.
  3. Griesel D. Clinical trial recruitment in the digital era: some smart ideas. 2015. Available from: http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/clinical-trial-recruitment-digital-era-some-smart-ideas.
  4. Clinithink Limited. A paradigm shift in patient recruitment for clinical trials. White paper. 2017.
  5. Alheresh R, Allaire SH, Lavalley MP, Vaughan M, Emmetts R, Keysor JJ. ‘Work it’ recruitment: lessons learned from an arthritis work disability prevention randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;10:S1220.
  6. Polak E, Apfel A, Privitera M, Buse D, Haut S. Daily diaries in epilepsy research: does electronic format improve adherence? Epilepsy Curr. 2014;1:180.
  7. Rellis L, Haidari G, Ridgers H, Jones CB, Miller A, Shattock R, et al. How the use of social media and online platforms can enhance recruitment to HIV clinical trials. HIV Med. 2015;2:64–5.
  8. PRIORITY Study. Prioritising recruitment and retention in randomised trials (PRioRiTy) Galway. Ireland: University of Galway; 2019. Available from: https://priorityresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/priority-research-logo-small.jpg.
  9. Pew Research Center. Social media use by age. 2018.
  10. Sensis. Sensis social media report 2017. How Australian people and businesses are using social media. 2017.
  11. Office for National Statistics. Internet users in the UK: 2016. 2016.
  12. Pew Research Center. Internet/broadband fact sheet. 2017.
  13. Parker A, Arundel C, Beard D, Bower P, Brocklehurst P, Coleman E, et al. PROMoting THE USE OF SWATs (PROMETHEUS): routinely embedding recruitment and retention interventions within randomised trials. Trials. 2019;20(Suppl 1:579):160.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Frampton, G. K., Shepherd, J., Pickett, K., Griffiths, G., & Wyatt, J. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Frampton, Geoff K.
ORCID
Venue
Trials
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-06-05
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
478-478
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3
PMC
PMC7273688
OpenAlex
W3033583499
Cited by
119
References
190
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
participant recruitment, participant retention, randomized controlled trials, digital tools, social media, text messaging, email, data mining, recruitment efficiency, cost per participant, underserved populations, research gaps
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, United Kingdom, Humans, Software, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Efficiency, Organizational, Patient Selection, Health Care Surveys, Text Messaging, Social Media

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