Cited by 433Ethics in Clinical ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study

Open access
Campbell, M, Snowdon, C, Francis, D, Elbourne, D, McDonald, A, Knight, R, Entwistle, V, Garcia, J +3 more·2007·Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

Objectives To identify factors associated with good and poor recruitment to multicentre trials. Data sources Part A: database of trials started in or after 1994 and were due to end before 2003 held by the Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programmes. Part B: interviews with people playing a wide range of roles within four trials that their funders identified as 'exemplars'. Part C: a large multicentre trial (the CRASH trial) of treatment for head injury. Review methods The study used a number of different perspectives ('multiple lenses'), and three components. Part A: an epidemiological review of a cohort of trials. Part B: case studies of trials that appeared to have particularly interesting lessons for recruitment. Part C: a single, in-depth case study to examine the feasibility of applying a business-orientated analytical framework as a reference model in future trials. Results In the 114 trials found in Part A, less than one-third recruited their original target within the time originally specified, and around one-third had extensions. Factors observed more often in trials that recruited successfully were: having a dedicated trial manager, being a cancer or drug trial, and having interventions only available inside the trial. The most commonly reported strategies to improve recruitment were newsletters and mailshots, but it was not possible to assess whether they were causally linked to changes in recruitment. The analyses in Part B suggested that…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hta11480

Cites

100 of 100 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campbell, M., Snowdon, C., Francis, D., Elbourne, D., McDonald, A., Knight, R., Entwistle, V, Garcia, J., Roberts, I., Grant, A., & Grant, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Published
2007-11
Volume
11
Issue
48
Pages
iii, ix-105
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W2118907870
Cited by
433
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 17
FWCI
17.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment programme (06/90/13)
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
trial recruitment, trial management, clinical trial participation, CRASH trial, head injury treatment, team building, recruitment barriers, research funding programs, MRC, cancer clinical trials, drug trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Interviews as Topic, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Databases as Topic

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