Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011)

Trials

Volumn 12, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Paramasivan, Sangeetha ^a   Huddart, Robert ^b   Hall, Emma ^b   Lewis, Rebecca ^b   Birtle, Alison ^c,d   Donovan, Jenny L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL PRESTON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIO RECORDING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TRAINING; BLADDER TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COOPERATION; CYSTECTOMY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NOMENCLATURE; PATIENT SELECTION; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; CYSTECTOMY; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; PATIENT SELECTION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

EID: 79952550198     PISSN: 17456215     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-78     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998, 2:1-124.
2. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JA, Boutron I, Clavein P, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, . for the Balliol Collaboration Surgical innovation and evaluation 2: Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009, 374:1097-1104. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2, 2855679, 19782875, for the Balliol Collaboration.
3. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J, . for the Balliol Collaboration Surgical innovation and evaluation 3: No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009, 374:1105-1112. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8, 19782876, for the Balliol Collaboration.
4. Reeves B. Health-technology assessment in surgery. Lancet 1999, 353:3-5.
5. Kaufman DS, Shipley WU, Feldman AS. Bladder cancer. Lancet 2009, 374:239-249. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60491-8, 19520422.
6. Moynihan C, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Mead GM, Sreenivasan T, Huddart R, . on behalf of the SPARE TMG SPARE: A qualitative study investigating randomisation barriers in a Selective Bladder Preservation trial (SBP) (ISCRCTN:61126465) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:s15. on behalf of the SPARE TMG.
7. de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, Donovan J. Using qualitative research methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: the Quartet study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008, 13:92-96. 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008028, 18806198.
8. de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, Donovan J. Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: Issues arising in establishing research collaborations. Contemp Clin Trials 2008, 29:663-670. 10.1016/j.cct.2008.03.003, 18479977.
9. Howard L, de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Thornicroft G, Donovan J. Why is recruitment to trials difficult? An investigation into recruitment difficulties in an RCT of supported employment in patients with severe mental illness. Contemp Clin Trials 2009, 30:40-46. 10.1016/j.cct.2008.07.007, 2626649, 18718555.
10. Donovan JL, Lane JA, Peters TJ, Brindle L, Salter E, Gillatt D, Powell P, Bollina P, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, . for the ProctecT Study Group Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:29-36. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010, 18619811, for the ProctecT Study Group.
11. Gomm R. Social research methodology - a critical introduction 2004, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Neuman WL. Social research methods - qualitative and quantitative approaches 2001, Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, 4.
13. Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data - methods for analysing talk, text and interaction 2001, London: Sage, 2.
14. Donovan J, Sanders C. Key issues in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research. Handbook of health research methods 2005, 515-532. Maidenhead: Open University Press, Bowling A, Ebrahim S.
15. Miles M, Huberman M. Qualitative data analysis 1994, London: Sage.
16. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, Frankel S, Neal D, Hamdy F, . for the ProtecT Study Group Improving design and conduct of randomised controlled trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ 2002, 325:766-770. 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766, 1124277, 12364308, for the ProtecT Study Group.
17. Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:2018-2028. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023, 19364625.
18. Huddart RA, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A. Life and death of SPARE (Selective bladder Preservation Against Radical Excision): reflections on why the SPARE trial closed. BJU Int 2010, 106:753-755. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09537.x, 20707796.
19. Lewis R, Huddart R, Birtle A, Blazeby J, Jones E, Hall E, . on behalf of the SPARE TMG Challenges of identifying cancer patients for randomised controlled trials from urology clinics - what lessons can we learn from SPARE? (CRUK/07/011) [abstract]. National Cancer Research Institute Conference 2009, Birmingham, on behalf of the SPARE TMG., http://www.ncri.org.uk/ncriconference/2009abstracts/abstracts/C118.htm
20. Fayter D, McDaid C, Eastwood A. A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:990-1001. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.013, 17884592.
21. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, Sibbald B, Lai R. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA 2005, 293:1089-1099. 10.1001/jama.293.9.1089, 15741531.
22. Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, Griffith L, Wu P, Wilson K, Ellis P, Wright JR. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol 2006, 7:141-148. 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70576-9, 16455478.
23. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:1143-1156. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00141-9, 10580777.
24. Gifford F. Community equipoise and the ethics of randomized clinical trials. Bioethics 1995, 9:127-148. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00306.x, 11653056.
25. Gifford F. Uncertainty about clinical equipoise. BMJ 2001, 322:795. 10.1136/bmj.322.7289.795, 1119966, 11282877.