The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people's awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11-2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study's main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007. CONCLUSION: Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures






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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Different recruitment methods can substantially affect the number and type of trial participants recruited206 309 312 313 and can incur different costs.314 315 316”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [312]
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior
Becker, M. H. (1976) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,065
The Health Belief Model and Sick Role Behavior
Becker, M. H. (1974) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817400200407 · Cited by 2,327
Recruiting Minorities Into Clinical Trials Toward a Participant-Friendly System
Swanson, G. M., & Ward, A. J. (1995) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/87.23.1747 · Cited by 558
Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: Literature summary and annotated bibliography
Lovato, L., Hill, K., Hertert, S., Hunninghake, D. B., & Probstfield, J. L. (1997) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00236-x · Cited by 400
Which clinical studies provide the best evidence?
Barton, S. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7256.255 · Cited by 384
Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials
Watson, J. M., & Torgerson, D. J. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-34 · Cited by 333
Simes, R. J., Tattersall, M. H. N., Coates, A., Raghavan, D., Solomon, H. J., & Smartt, H. (1986) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.293.6554.1065 · Cited by 202
Coyne, C. A., Xu, R., Raich, P. C., Plomer, K., Dignan, M., Wenzel, L. B., Fairclough, D. L., Habermann, T. M., Schnell, L., Quella, S. K., et al. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.07.022 · Cited by 198
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- P Caldwell, 2002, Strategies for recruitment to RCTs: a systematic review of controlled trials and observational studies.
- P Caldwell, 2007, Systematic review of strategies for enhancing recruitment of participants for randomised controlled trials.
- E Quinaux, 2003, Impact of monitoring visits on patient recruitment and data quality: case study of a phase IV trial in oncology., Control Clin Trials, 24, 99S
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–304 of 304
Empirical studies on adversarial reverse engineering with students
Zhang, T., Sutter, B. D., Collberg, C. S., Coppens, B., & Mebane, W. (2026) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-026-10908-1
Javed, K. M. A. A., Butt, G. F., Bansal, G., Noeman, M., Murray, P. I., & Rauz, S. (2026) · BMJ Open Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bmjophth-2026-002903
Morgan, E. R., Bogić, M., Dillard, D. A., & Boyd, A. D. (2026) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108438
Optimiser l'évaluation des médicaments en néonatologie : l'exemple des médicaments anti-infectieux
Kaguelidou, F. (2012) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/66595f51z8a8bz4183z8420zb0acdb02d503
Metadata
- Authors
- Caldwell, P. H. Y., Hamilton, S., Tan, A., & Craig, J. C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Children's Hospital at Westmead (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Caldwell, Patrina H. Y.
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2010-11-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e1000368
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-1676
- PMC
- PMC2976724
- OpenAlex
- W2121847763
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of Sydney
- 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
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- randomized controlled trials, clinical trial participation, participant awareness, financial incentives, trial design, informed consent, loss to follow-up, mock trial, health education
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size
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