Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 13, Supplement 3 > Pp. 92-96

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by de Salis, I. Articles by Donovan, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original research

Using qualitative research methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: the Quartet study

Isabel de Salis, Zelda Tomlin, Merran Toerien ¹, Jenny Donovan 

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol; ¹ Department of Sociology, University of York, York, UK

Correspondence to: jenny.donovan{at}bristol.ac.uk

Objective: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the optimum method for evaluating health care interventions, yet many fail to recruit sufficient participants in a timely manner. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) study employed qualitative research methods as part of a complex intervention to improve recruitment to the RCT. The Quartet (Qualitative research to improve recruitment to trials) study was set up to evalute whether the ProtecT study's success in increasing randomization rates could be replicated in other trials experiencing recruitment difficulties. This paper reports on the issues that emerged from the attempts to apply qualitative research methods to improve recruitment rates in RCTs collaborating with the Quartet team.

Methods: The methods used were: investigation of RCT documents; semi-structured interviews and focus groups with RCT staff; audio-recording of recruitment appointments; and individual and group feedback sessions for RCT staff. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis.

Results: Barriers arose when we attempted to establish collaborations with RCTs. Difficulties were encountered in securing the commitment of all relevant staff because of poor communication between lead investigators and other staff as well as RCT staff's concerns about having recruitment appointments audio-recorded. Recruitment processes were often more complex than anticipated. Governance procedures took considerable time and resources, limiting the time available for data collection and implementation of the intervention before recruitment closure.

Conclusion: Straightforward replication of the ProtecT complex intervention was more complicated than expected. However, the study has increased understanding of RCT recruitment and identified ways to overcome barriers to collaboration. Such research is more easily undertaken in the feasibility stage of an RCT, and greater success will be achieved if the research is integrated into the everyday conduct of RCTs.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?