Feasibility and acceptability of TRANSFoRm to improve clinical trial recruitment in primary care

Family Practice

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 186-191

  Mastellos, Nikolaos ^a   Bliźniuk, Grzegorz ^b,c   Czopnik, Dorota ^d   McGilchrist, Mark ^e   Misiaszek, Andrzej ^f   Bródka, Piotr ^f   Curcin, Vasa ^g   Car, Josip ^a   Delaney, Brendan C ^a   Andreasson, Anna ^h  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b MILITARY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

^c The National Centre for Healthcare Systems   (Poland)

^d WROCLAW MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^f WROCLAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

^g KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^h KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Electronic medical records; Gastroenterology GERD dyspepsia; Primary care; Quality of life; Research ethics informed consent

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHYSICIAN; POLAND; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SMARTPHONE; SOCIAL STATUS; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE AND PATIENT SAFETY IN EUROPE; WEB BROWSER; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TELEMEDICINE; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT SELECTION; POLAND; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; TELEMEDICINE; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84963976790     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: 14602229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmv102     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006; 7: 9
2. Charlson ME, Horwitz RI. Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984; 289: 1281-4
3. Treweek S, Wilkie E, Craigie AM et al.; BeWEL Team. Meeting the challenges of recruitment to multicentre, community-based, lifestyle-change trials: a case study of the BeWEL trial. Trials 2013; 14: 436
4. Bower P, Wallace P, Ward E et al. Improving recruitment to health research in primary care. Fam Pract 2009; 26: 391-7
5. Dean SC, Harper CE, Cappuccio FP et al.; European Collaborative Group of the IMMIDIET Project. The challenges of cross-national research in primary health care across Europe. Fam Pract 2005; 22: 341-6
6. Wilson S, Delaney BC, Roalfe A et al. Randomised controlled trials in primary care: case study. BMJ 2000; 321: 24-7
7. Le Jeannic A, Quelen C, Alberti C, Durand-Zaleski I; CompaRec Investigators. Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 7
8. Walther B, Hossin S, Townend JK et al. Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data. PLoS One 2011; 6: e25348
9. Ganser LA, Raymond AS, Pearson JD. Data quality and power in clinical trials: a comparison of ePRO and paper in a randomized trial. In: Byrom B, Tiplady B (eds). EPro: Electronic Solutions for Patient-Reported Data. Surrey, Canada: Gower Publishing Ltd, 2010, pp. 49-78
10. Lane SJ, Heddle NM, Arnold E, Walker I. A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 23
11. Mastellos N, Andreasson A, Huckvale K et al. A cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of eHealth-supported patient recruitment in primary care research: the TRANSFoRm study protocol. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 15
12. Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2003; 35: 379-83
13. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess GR (eds). Analyzing Qualitative Data. London, UK: Routledge, 1994, pp. 173-94
14. Croughan M. Factors influencing physician participation in practice-based research network studies: a call for further research. J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 978-9
15. Verheggen FW, Nieman FH, Reerink E, Kok GJ. Patient satisfaction with clinical trial participation. Int J Qual Health Care 1998; 10: 319-30
16. Bell-Syer SE, Moffett JA. Recruiting patients to randomized trials in primary care: principles and case study. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 187-91
17. van Staa TP, Dyson L, McCann G et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 2014; 18: 1-146
18. Embi PJ, Jain A, Harris CM. Physicians' perceptions of an electronic health record-based clinical trial alert approach to subject recruitment: a survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 13
19. Treweek S, Pearson E, Smith N et al. Desktop software to identify patients eligible for recruitment into a clinical trial: using SARMA to recruit to the ROAD feasibility trial. Inform Prim Care 2010; 18: 51-8
20. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006; 18: 59-82