Does a video clip enhance recruitment into a parenting trial? Learnings from a study within a trial
- PDF / 1,001,558 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 23 Downloads / 167 Views
RESEARCH
Open Access
Does a video clip enhance recruitment into a parenting trial? Learnings from a study within a trial Holly C. Mattock1†, Rachael Ryan1†, Christine O’Farrelly1,2, Daphne Babalis3 and Paul G. Ramchandani1,2,4*
Abstract Background: Reaching recruitment targets in randomised controlled trials is a challenge. Media tools are increasingly used to engage participants, yet there is a paucity of research into the use of video to optimise recruitment. We therefore tested whether adding a participant information video clip to a standard participant information sheet improved recruitment into a parenting trial. Methods: One hundred seven participants were randomised to receive either a participant information sheet (n = 51) or an informational video clip (n = 56) as part of an email contact following a screening phase. All participants went on to receive the information sheet as part of the existing consent procedure. Results: The video condition did not increase the odds of recruitment into the trial, such that those in the video condition were significantly less likely to participate in the main trial (OR = 0.253, CI = 0.104–0.618, p = 0.003). Conclusion: The introduction of a video clip into the recruitment stages of a parenting trial did not lead to an improvement in recruitment; however, the small sample size precludes definitive inferences. We offer reflections on challenges encountered in implementing the SWAT and suggestions for other researchers seeking to embed recruitment SWATs into similar trials. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN 58327365. Registered on 19 March 2015. SWAT registration: SWAT 106; Effects of a video clip on recruitment into a randomised trial. Registered on 20 December 2016. Keywords: Recruitment, Patient information, Research methodology, Video clip
Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in research design for evaluating interventions [1, 2]. However, issues surrounding recruitment and retention are common, which often lead to delays, extra costs, protocol changes or the altogether abandonment of * Correspondence: [email protected] † Holly C. Mattock and Rachael Ryan contributed equally to this work. 1 Centre for Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK 2 PEDAL Research Centre, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PQ, UK Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
trials [3]. Poor or slow recruitment, whereby the target sample number is not reached within the anticipated timeframe, can lead to smaller sample sizes, which can give rise to sampling bias, limiting statistical power, and may increase the possibility of a type 2 error [4, 5]. For example, within the UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) invests substantial funding in health intervention research; in 2014 and 2015, this amounted to £237.6 million, with a considerable proportion allocated to RCTs [6]. Yet in Raftery et al.’s [3] review of 125 NIHRfunded RCTs, the aut
Data Loading...
