↓ Skip to main content

The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
46 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial
Published in
Trials, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1718-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adwoa Hughes-Morley, Mark Hann, Claire Fraser, Oonagh Meade, Karina Lovell, Bridget Young, Chris Roberts, Lindsey Cree, Donna More, Neil O’Leary, Patrick Callaghan, Waquas Waheed, Peter Bower

Abstract

Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants. This is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial ('EQUIP') recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation. Thirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research. ISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358 . Registered on 14 May 2014. Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26 . Registered on 21 January 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Professor 6 6%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Psychology 11 11%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 27 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2019.
All research outputs
#762,165
of 16,060,661 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#191
of 4,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,964
of 391,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#18
of 437 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,060,661 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 391,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 437 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.