↓ Skip to main content

An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial
Published in
Trials, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1797-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Cockayne, Caroline Fairhurst, Joy Adamson, Catherine Hewitt, Robin Hull, Kate Hicks, Anne-Maree Keenan, Sarah E. Lamb, Lorraine Green, Caroline McIntosh, Hylton B. Menz, Anthony C. Redmond, Sara Rodgers, David J. Torgerson, Wesley Vernon, Judith Watson, Peter Knapp, Jo Rick, Peter Bower, Sandra Eldridge, Vichithranie W. Madurasinghe, Jonathan Graffy

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials are generally regarded as the 'gold standard' experimental design to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. Unfortunately, many trials either fail to recruit sufficient numbers of participants, or recruitment takes longer than anticipated. The current embedded trial evaluates the effectiveness of optimised patient information sheets on recruitment of participants in a falls prevention trial. A three-arm, embedded randomised methodology trial was conducted within the National Institute for Health Research-funded REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) cohort randomised controlled trial. Routine National Health Service podiatry patients over the age of 65 were randomised to receive either the control patient information sheet (PIS) for the host trial or one of two optimised versions, a bespoke user-tested PIS or a template-developed PIS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group who went on to be randomised to the host trial. Six thousand and nine hundred patients were randomised 1:1:1 into the embedded trial. A total of 193 (2.8%) went on to be randomised into the main REFORM trial (control n = 62, template-developed n = 68; bespoke user-tested n = 63). Information sheet allocation did not improve recruitment to the trial (odds ratios for the three pairwise comparisons: template vs control 1.10 (95% CI 0.77-1.56, p = 0.60); user-tested vs control 1.01 (95% CI 0.71-1.45, p = 0.94); and user-tested vs template 0.92 (95% CI 0.65-1.31, p = 0.65)). This embedded methodology trial has demonstrated limited evidence as to the benefit of using optimised information materials on recruitment and retention rates in the REFORM study. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, ISRCTN68240461 . Registered on 01 July 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 13 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 06 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,057,030
of 17,814,645 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#291
of 4,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,762
of 273,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,814,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 273,994 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them