Strategies for research participant engagement: A synthetic review and conceptual framework
Abstract
Background:
Research participant engagement, which we define as recruitment and retention in clinical trials, is a costly and challenging issue in clinical research. Research teams have leveraged a variety of strategies to increase research participant engagement in clinical trials, although a framework and evidence for effective participant engagement strategies are lacking. We (1) developed a novel conceptual framework for strategies used to recruit and retain participants in clinical trials based on their underlying behavioral principles and (2) categorized empirically tested recruitment and retention strategies in this novel framework.
Methods:
We conducted a synthetic analysis of interventions tested in studies from two Cochrane reviews on clinical trial recruitment and retention, which included studies from 1986 to 2015. We developed a conceptual framework of behavioral strategies for increasing research participant engagement using deductive and inductive approaches with the studies included in the Cochrane reviews. Reviewed interventions were then categorized using this framework. We examined the results of reviewed interventions and categorized the effects on clinical trial recruitment and retention as significantly positive, null, or significantly negative; summary statistics are presented for the frequency and effects of each behavioral strategy type.
Results:
We analyzed 141 unique interventions across 96 studies: 91 interventions targeted clinical trial research participant recruitment and 50 targeted retention. Our framework included 14 behavioral strategies to improve research participant engagement grouped into four general approaches: changing attitudes by appealing to social motivators, changing attitudes by targeting individual psychology, reducing barriers and cognitive burdens, and providing incentives. The majority of interventions (54%) aimed to reduce barriers or cognitive burdens, with improving comprehension (27%) as the most common specific strategy identified. For recruitment, the most common behavioral strategies tested were building legitimacy or trust (38%) and framing risks and benefits (32%), while financial or material incentives (32%) and reducing financial, time, and social barriers (32%) were most common for retention interventions. Among interventions tested in randomized controlled trials, 51% had a null effect on research participant engagement, and 30% had a statistically significant positive effect.
Discussion:
Clinical researchers have tested a wide range of interventions that leverage distinct behavioral strategies to achieve improved research participant recruitment and retention. Common behavioral strategies include building legitimacy or trust between research teams and participants, as well as improving participant comprehension of trial objectives and procedures. The high frequency of null effects among tested interventions suggests challenges in selecting the optimal interventions for increasing research participant engagement, although the proposed behavioral strategy categories can serve as a conceptual framework for developing and testing future interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 690–694.
2. Altman DG. Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample? Br Med J 1980; 281: 1336–1338.
3. Juni P, Egger M. Commentary: empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34(1): 87–88.
4. Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, et al. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol 2017; 72(5): 789–798.
5. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, et al. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014; 15: 5.
6. Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, et al. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67(8): 912–920.
7. Stensland KD, McBride RB, Latif A, et al. Adult cancer clinical trials that fail to complete: an epidemic. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106(9): dju229.
8. Carlisle B, Kimmelman J, Ramsay T, et al. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin Trials 2015; 12(1): 77–83.
9. Massett HA, Mishkin G, Rubinstein L, et al. Challenges facing early phase trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute: an analysis of corrective action plans to improve accrual. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 5408–5416.
10. Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2006; 332: 969–971.
11. Leon AC, Mallinckrodt CH, Chuang-Stein C, et al. Attrition in randomized controlled clinical trials: methodological issues in psychopharmacology. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 59: 1001–1005.
12. Crutzen R, Viechtbauer W, Spigt M, et al. Differential attrition in health behaviour change trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Health 2015; 30(1): 122–134.
13. Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 2: MR000013.
14. Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12: MR000032.
15. Lee H, Hübscher M, Moseley GL, et al. An embedded randomised controlled trial of a Teaser Campaign to optimise recruitment in primary care. Clin Trials 2017; 14(2): 162–169.
16. Land SR, Ritter MW, Costantino JP, et al. Compliance with patient-reported outcomes in multicenter clinical trials: methodologic and practical approaches. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5113–5120.
17. Fowell A, Johnstone R, Finlay IG, et al. Design of trials with dying patients: a feasibility study of cluster randomisation versus randomised consent. Palliat Med 2006; 20(8): 799–804.
18. Kimmick GG, Peterson BL, Kornblith AB, et al. Improving accrual of older persons to cancer treatment trials: a randomized trial comparing an educational intervention with standard information: CALGB 360001. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2201–2207.
19. Liénard JL, Quinaux E, Fabre-Guillevin E, et al. Impact of on-site initiation visits on patient recruitment and data quality in a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Clin Trials 2006; 3(5): 486–492.
20. Higgins ST, Silverman K, Sigmon SC, et al. Incentives and health: an introduction. Prev Med 2012; 55(Suppl.): S2–S6.
21. Glanz K, Bishop DB. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health 2010; 31: 399–418.
22. Parkinson B, Meacock R, Sutton M, et al. Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design. Trials 2019; 20: 624.
23. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials2014; 15: 399–399.
24. VanEpps EM, Volpp KG, Halpern SD. A nudge toward participation: improving clinical trial enrollment with behavioral economics. Sci Transl Med 2016; 8: 348fs313.
25. Fracasso PM, Goodner SA, Creekmore AN, et al. Coaching intervention as a strategy for minority recruitment to cancer clinical trials. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9(6): 294–299.
26. Larkey LK, Staten LK, Ritenbaugh C, et al. Recruitment of Hispanic women to the Women’s Health Initiative. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23(3): 289–298.
27. Free C, Hoile E, Robertson S, et al. Three controlled trials of interventions to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial of mobile phone based smoking cessation support. Clin Trials 2010; 7(3): 265–273.
28. Foss KT, Kjaergaard J, Stensballe LG, et al. Recruiting to clinical trials on the telephone—a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17: 552.
29. Dear RF, Barratt AL, Askie LM, et al. Impact of a cancer clinical trials web site on discussions about trial participation: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Oncol 2012; 23(7): 1912–1918.
30. Wells KJ, McIntyre J, Gonzalez LE, et al. Feasibility trial of a Spanish-language multimedia educational intervention. Clin Trials 2013; 10(5): 767–774.
31. Ford ME, Havstad SL, Davis SD. A randomized trial of recruitment methods for older African American men in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Clin Trials 2004; 1(4): 343–351.
32. Dickert N, Emanuel E, Grady C. Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 368–373.
33. Grady C, Dickert N, Jawetz T, et al. An analysis of U.S. Practices of paying research participants. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26(3): 365–375.
34. Emanuel EJ, Schnipper LE, Kamin DY, et al. The costs of conducting clinical research. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 4145–4150.
35. Khadjesari Z, Murray E, Kalaitzaki E, et al. Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: two randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13: e26.
36. Brown AP, Lawrie HE, Kennedy AD, et al. Cost effectiveness of a prize draw on response to a postal questionnaire: results of a randomised trial among orthopaedic outpatients in Edinburgh. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997; 51(4): 463–464.
37. Bauer JE, Rezaishiraz H, Head K, et al. Obtaining DNA from a geographically dispersed cohort of current and former smokers: use of mail-based mouthwash collection and monetary incentives. Nicotine Tob Res 2004; 6(3): 439–446.
38. Largent EA, Lynch HF. Paying research participants: the outsized influence of “undue influence.” IRB 2017; 39(4): 1–9.
39. Schmotzer GL. Barriers and facilitators to participation of minorities in clinical trials. Ethn Dis 2012; 22(2): 226–230.
40. George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health 2014; 104(2): e16–e31.
41. Limkakeng AT Jr, de Oliveira LL, Moreira T, et al. Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions. J Med Ethics 2014; 40(6): 401–408.
42. Brown G, Marshall M, Bower P, et al. Barriers to recruiting ethnic minorities to mental health research: a systematic review. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2014; 23(1): 36–48.
43. Resnik DB. Scientific research and the public trust. Sci Eng Ethics 2011; 17: 399–409.
44. Kerasidou A. Trust me, I’m a researcher!: the role of trust in biomedical research. Med Health Care Philos 2017; 20(1): 43–50.
45. Marshall PA, Rotimi C. Ethical challenges in community-based research. Am J Med Sci 2001; 322: 241–245.
46. Bosk CL. Obtaining voluntary consent for research in desperately ill patients. Med Care 2002; 40(9Suppl.): V64–V68.
47. Smirnoff M, Wilets I, Ragin DF, et al. A paradigm for understanding trust and mistrust in medical research: the community VOICES study. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2018; 9(1): 39–47.
48. Kripalani S, Bengtzen R, Henderson LE, et al. Clinical research in low-literacy populations: using teach-back to assess comprehension of informed consent and privacy information. IRB 2008; 30(2): 13–19.
49. Tamariz L, Palacio A, Robert M, et al. Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28(1): 121–126.
50. Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007; 39(3): 273–280.
51. Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern cooperative oncology group. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 836–842.
52. Hutchison C, Cowan C, McMahon T, et al. A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2007; 97: 705–711.
53. Jacobsen PB, Wells KJ, Meade CD, et al. Effects of a brief multimedia psychoeducational intervention on the attitudes and interest of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial participation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2516–2521.
54. Foe G, Larson EL. Reading level and comprehension of research consent forms: an integrative review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2016; 11(1): 31–46.
55. Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, et al. Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e324.
56. Karunaratne AS, Korenman SG, Thomas SL, et al. Improving communication when seeking informed consent: a randomised controlled study of a computer-based method for providing information to prospective clinical trial participants. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 388–392.
57. Weston J, Hannah M, Downes J. Evaluating the benefits of a patient information video during the informed consent process. Patient Educ Couns 1997; 30(3): 239–245.
58. Du W, Mood D, Gadgeel S, et al. An educational video to increase clinical trials enrollment among lung cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol 2008; 3(1): 23–29.
59. Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, et al. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol 2015; 3: 32.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: May 20, 2021
Issue published: August 2021
Keywords
PubMed: 34011179
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 2412
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 14 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 22
- Effectiveness of group therapy based on acceptance and commitment for nursing students' procrastination and perfectionism: A parallel randomized controlled trial
- A multilevel framework for recruitment and retention in implementation trials: An illustrative example
- Qualitative understanding of experiences of people with cystic fibrosis in a treatment discontinuation trial: The QUEST study
- What do older women want from a physical activity program? Stakeholder consultation to optimise design and recruitment for the Active Women over 50 trial
- Coaching to develop leadership of healthcare managers: a mixed-methods systematic review
- Developing Smart Technology for Dementia Care in Transitional Care Units: Barriers to Participant Engagement & Alternative Strategies
- The value of decentralized clinical trials: Inclusion, accessibility, and innovation
- Impact of recruitment strategies on individual participation practices in the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network: prospective cohort study
- Public engagement for the conduct of a controlled human infection study testing vaccines against Necator americanus (hookworm) in areas of active hookworm transmission in Brazil
- Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
SCT members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
SCT members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
