↓ Skip to main content

Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
194 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study
Published in
Trials, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2544-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Healy, Sandra Galvin, Paula R. Williamson, Shaun Treweek, Caroline Whiting, Beccy Maeso, Christopher Bray, Peter Brocklehurst, Mary Clarke Moloney, Abdel Douiri, Carrol Gamble, Heidi R. Gardner, Derick Mitchell, Derek Stewart, Joan Jordan, Martin O’Donnell, Mike Clarke, Sue H. Pavitt, Eleanor Woodford Guegan, Amanda Blatch-Jones, Valerie Smith, Hannah Reay, Declan Devane

Abstract

Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?" The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 194 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 21%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 38 32%