Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with good and poor recruitment to multicentre trials.DATA SOURCES: Part A: database of trials started in or after 1994 and were due to end before 2003 held by the Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programmes. Part B: interviews with people playing a wide range of roles within four trials that their funders identified as 'exemplars'. Part C: a large multicentre trial (the CRASH trial) of treatment for head injury.REVIEW METHODS: The study used a number of different perspectives ('multiple lenses'), and three components. Part A: an epidemiological review of a cohort of trials. Part B: case studies of trials that appeared to have particularly interesting lessons for recruitment. Part C: a single, in-depth case study to examine the feasibility of applying a business-orientated analytical framework as a reference model in future trials.RESULTS: In the 114 trials found in Part A, less than one-third recruited their original target within the time originally specified, and around one-third had extensions. Factors observed more often in trials that recruited successfully were: having a dedicated trial manager, being a cancer or drug trial, and having interventions only available inside the trial. The most commonly reported strategies to improve recruitment were newsletters and mailshots, but it was not possible to assess whether they were causally linked to changes in recruitment. The analyses in Part B suggested that successful trials were those addressing clinically important questions at a timely point. The investigators were held in high esteem by the interviewees, and the trials were firmly grounded in existing clinical practices, so that the trial processes were not alien to clinical collaborators, and the results could be easily applicable to future practice. The interviewees considered that the needs of patients were well served by participation in the trials. Clinical collaborators particularly appreciated clear delineation of roles, which released them from much of the workload associated with trial participation. There was a strong feeling from interviewees that they were proud to be part of a successful team. This pride fed into further success. Good groundwork and excellent communications across many levels of complex trial structures were considered to be extremely important, including training components for learning about trial interventions and processes, and team building. All four trials had faced recruitment problems, and extra insights into the working of trials were afforded by strategies invoked to address them. The process of the case study in Part C was able to draw attention to a body of research and practice in a different discipline (academic business studies). It generated a reference model derived from a combination of business theory and work within CRASH. This enabled identification of weaker managerial components within CRASH, and initiatives to strengthen them. Although it is not clear, even within CRASH, whether the initiatives that follow from developing and applying the model will be effective in increasing recruitment or other aspects of the success of the trial, the reference model could provide a template, with potential for those managing other trials to use or adapt it, especially at foundation stages. The model derived from this project could also be used as a diagnostic tool if trials have difficulties and hence as a basis for deciding what type of remedial action to take. It may also be useful for auditing the progress of trials, such as during external review.CONCLUSIONS: While not producing sufficiently definitive results to make strong recommendations, the work here suggests that future trials should consider the different needs at different phases in the life of trials, and place greater emphasis on 'conduct' (the process of actually doing trials). This implies learning lessons from successful trialists and trial managers, with better training for issues relating to trial conduct. The complexity of large trials means that unanticipated difficulties are highly likely at some time in every trial. Part B suggested that successful trials were those flexible and robust enough to adapt to unexpected issues. Arguably, the trialists should also expect agility from funders within a proactive approach to monitoring ongoing trials. Further research into different recruitment patterns (including 'failures') may help to clarify whether the patterns seen in the 'exemplar' trials differ or are similar. The reference model from Part C needs to be further considered in other similar and different trials to assess its robustness. These and other strategies aimed at increasing recruitment and making trials more successful need to be formally evaluated for their effectiveness in a range of trials.

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols

How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review protocol

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme

Establishing Requirements for Technology to Support Clinical Trial Retention: Systematic Scoping Review and Analysis Using Self-determination Theory

Retention of Ethnic Participants in Longitudinal Studies

When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

Personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to telephone follow-up: an embedded randomised controlled retention trial

Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme

Applying the 4Ps of social marketing to retain and engage participants in longitudinal cohort studies: generation 2 Raine study participant perspectives

Informing retention in longitudinal cohort studies through a social marketing lens: Raine Study Generation 2 participants' perspectives on benefits and barriers to participation

Evidence for strategies that improve recruitment and retention of adults aged 65 years and over in randomised trials and observational studies: a systematic review

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

The overlap between randomised evaluations of recruitment and retention interventions: An updated review of recruitment (Online Resource for Recruitment in Clinical triAls) and retention (Online Resource for Retention in Clinical triAls) literature

Feasibility of reporting results of large randomised controlled trials to participants: experience from the Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision (FOCUS) trial

Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design

Effective interventions to increase representation of under-served groups in randomised trials in UK and Ireland: a scoping literature review

Retention rates and reasons for non-retention in exercise oncology trials in the post-treatment phase—a systematic review

Providing multimedia information to children and young people increases recruitment to trials: pre-planned meta-analysis of SWATs

Recruitment and retention of participants in UK surgical trials: survey of key issues reported by trial staff

Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study