Lessons learnt during a complex, multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial: the ProAct65+ trial

Trials

Steve Iliffe³  Dawn A Skelton¹  Tahir Masud²  Richard Morris³  Denise Kendrick⁴  Deborah Haworth³  Carolyn Belcher⁴  Sheena Gawler³  Hannah Carpenter⁴  Zoe Stevens³ 

[1] School of Health & Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, A230 Govan Mbeki Building, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, Scotland;Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Derby, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK;Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL Medical School, Royal Free Hospital, London, NW3 2PF, UK;School of Community Health Sciences, Division of Primary Care, Room 1309, Tower Building, University Park, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

关键词: Quality assurance;    Data collection;    Postural stability instructors;    Peer mentors;    Exercise;    Adverse events;    Recruitment;    General practice;    Randomised controlled trial;   

Others  :  1093570
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-192

 received in 2013-02-05, accepted in 2013-06-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Failure to recruit to target or schedule is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Innovative interventions are not always fully developed before being tested, and maintenance of fidelity to the intervention during trials can be problematic. Missing data can compromise analyses, and inaccurate capture of risks to participants can influence reporting of intervention harms and benefits.

In this paper we describe how challenges of recruitment and retention of participants, standardisation and quality control of interventions and capture of adverse events were overcome in the ProAct65+ cluster RCT. This trial compared class-based and home-based exercise with usual care in people aged 65 years and over, recruited through general practice. The home-based exercise participants were supported by Peer Mentors.

Results

(1) Organisational factors, including room availability in general practices, slowed participant recruitment so the recruitment period was extended and the number invited to participate increased. (2) Telephone pre-screening was introduced to exclude potential participants who were already very active and those who were frequent fallers. (3) Recruitment of volunteer peer mentors was difficult and time consuming and their acceptable case load less than expected. Lowering the age limit for peer mentors and reducing their contact schedule with participants did not improve recruitment. (4) Fidelity to the group intervention was optimised by introducing quality assurance observation of classes by experienced exercise instructors. (5) Diaries were used to capture data on falls, service use and other exercise-related costs, but completion was variable so their frequency was reduced. (6) Classification of adverse events differed between research sites so all events were assessed by both sites and discrepancies discussed.

Conclusions

Recruitment rates for trials in general practice may be limited by organisational factors and longer recruitment periods should be allowed for. Exercise studies may be attractive to those who least need them; additional screening measures can be employed to avoid assessment of ineligible participants. Enrolment of peer mentors for intervention support is challenging and needs to be separately tested for feasibility. Standardisation of exercise interventions is problematic when exercise programmes are tailored to participants’ capabilities; quality assurance observations may assure fidelity of the intervention. Data collection by diaries can be burdensome to participants, resulting in variable and incomplete data capture; compromises in completion frequency may reduce missing data. Risk assessments are essential in exercise promotion studies, but categorisation of risks can vary between assessors; methods for their standardisation can be developed.

Trial registration

ISRCTN43453770

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Stevens et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Iliffe S, Kendrick D, Morris R, Skelton DA, Gage H, Dinan S, Stevens Z, Pearl M, Masud T: Multi-centre cluster randomised trial comparing a community group exercise programme with home based exercise with usual care for people aged 65 and over in primary care: protocol of the ProAct 65+ trial. Trials 2010, 11:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Chief Medical Officers: Start Active Stay Active: A report on exercise for health from the four home countries' Chief Medical Officers. London: Department of Health; 2011.
• [3]Booker CL, Harding S, Benzeval M: A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:249. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Perry L, Kendrick D, Morris R, Dinan S, Masud T, Skelton D, Iliffe S, ProAct65+ study team: Completion and return of fall diaries varies with participants' level of education, first language, and baseline fall risk. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2012, 67:210-214.
• [5]Ebrahim S, Thompson PW, Baskaran V, Evans K: Randomized placebo-controlled trial of brisk walking in the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Age Ageing 1997, 26:253-260.
• [6]Lawton BA, Rose SB, Elley CR, Dowell AC, Fenton A, Moyes SA: Exercise on prescription for women aged 40-74 recruited through primary care: two year randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008, 337:a2509.
• [7]Davey R, Edwards SM, Cochrane T: Recruitment strategies for a clinical trial of community-based water therapy for osteoarthritis. Br J Gen Pract 2003, 53:315-317.
• [8]Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, Entwistle V, Garcia J, Roberts I, Grant A, the STEPS group: Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007, 11:iii-ix. 105
• [9]Skoro-Kondza L, See Tai S, Gadelrab R, Drincevic D, Greenhalgh T: Community based yoga classes for type 2 diabetes: an exploratory randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R: Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:1143-1156.
• [11]Hillsdon M, Foster C, Thorogood M: Interventions for promoting physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, 1:CD003180.
• [12]Personal Social Services Research Unit: National Evaluation of Partnerships for Older People Projects. London: Department of Health; 2009.
• [13]Hooker SP, Seavey W, Weidmer CE, Harvey DJ, Stewart AL, Gillis DE, Nicholl KL, King AC: The California Active Aging Community Grant Program: translating science into practice to promote physical activity in older adults. Ann Behav Med 2005, 29:155-165.
• [14]Murphy C, Cupples M, Percy A, Halliday H, Stewart M: Peer-mentoring for first-time mothers from areas of socio-economic disadvantage: a qualitative study within a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Dale J, Caramlau I, Sturt J, Friede T, Walker R: Telephone peer-delivered intervention for diabetes motivation and support: the telecare exploratory RCT. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 75:91-98.
• [16]Carroll C, Patterson S, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S: A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2007, 2:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Resnick B, Inguito P, Orwig D, Yahiro JY, Hawkes W, Werner M, Zimmerman S, Magaziner J: Treatment fidelity in behavior change research: a case example. Nurs Res 2005, 54:139-143.
• [18]Davis LL, Broome ME, Cox RP: Maximizing retention in community-based clinical trials. J Nurs Scholarsh 2002, 34:47-53.
• [19]Patel M, Doku V, Tennakoon L: Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2013, 19:229-238.
• [20]Motzer SA, Moseley JR, Lewis FM: Recruitment and retention of families in clinical trials with longitudinal designs. West J Nurs Res 1997, 19:314-333.
• [21]Foy R, Parry J, Duggan A, Delaney B, Wilson S, Lewin-Van Den Broek NT, Lassen A, Vickers L, Myres P: How evidence based are recruitment strategies to randomized controlled trials in primary care? Experience from seven studies. Fam Pract 2003, 20:83-92.
• [22]Peterson JC, Pirraglia PA, Wells MT, Charlson ME: Attrition in longitudinal randomized controlled trials: home visits make a difference. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12:178. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Williamson MK, Pirkis J, Pfaff JJ, Tyson O, Sim M, Kerse N, Lautenschlager NT, Stocks NP, Almeida OP: Recruiting and retaining GPs and patients in intervention studies: the DEPS-GP project as a case study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:42. BioMed Central Full Text