Exploring recruitment barriers and facilitators in early cancer detection trials: the use of pre-trial focus groups

Trials

Denise Kendrick²  Kavita Vedhara²  Kate Skellington Orr¹  Roshan das Nair³ 

[1] KSO Research Limited, Radleigh House, 1 Golf Road, Glasgow G76 7HU, UK;Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Floor 13, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK;Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, B98, B Floor, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK

关键词: Pretrial;    Recruitment;    Qualitative;    Focus groups;    Cancer;    Screening;   

Others  :  807164
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-15-98

 received in 2013-11-29, accepted in 2014-03-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Recruiting to randomized controlled trials is fraught with challenges; with less than one third recruiting to their original target. In preparation for a trial evaluating the effectiveness of a blood test to screen for lung cancer (the ECLS trial), we conducted a qualitative study to explore the potential barriers and facilitators that would impact recruitment.

Methods

Thirty two people recruited from community settings took part in four focus groups in Glasgow and Dundee (UK). Thematic analysis was used to code the data and develop themes.

Results

Three sub-themes were developed under the larger theme of recruitment strategies. The first of these themes, recruitment options, considered that participants largely felt that the invitation to participate letter should come from GPs, with postal reminders and face-to-face reminders during primary care contacts. The second theme dealt with understanding randomization and issues related to the control group (where bloods were taken but not tested). Some participants struggled with the concept or need for randomization, or for the need for a control group. Some reported that they would not consider taking part if allocated to the control group, but others were motivated to take part even if allocated to the control group by altruism. The final theme considered perceived barriers to participation and included practical barriers (such as flexible appointments and reimbursement of travel expenses) and psychosocial barriers (such as feeling stigmatized because of their smoking status and worries about being coerced into stopping smoking).

Conclusions

Focus groups provided useful information which resulted in numerous changes to proposed trial documentation and processes. This was in order to address participants information needs, improve comprehension of the trial documentation, enhance facilitators and remove barriers to participation. The modifications made in light of these findings may enhance trial recruitment and future trials may wish to consider use of pretrial focus groups.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 das Nair et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]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 enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007, 11:iii, ix-105.
• [2]Bower P, Wilson S, Mathers N: How often do UK primary care trials face recruitment delays? Fam Pract 2007, 24:601-603.
• [3]Tognoni G, Alli C, Azanzini F, Bettelli G, Colombo F, Corso R, Marchioli R, Zussino A: Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ 1991, 303:969-971.
• [4]Altman DG, Bland JM: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995, 311:485.
• [5]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.
• [6]Fayter D, McDaid C, Eastwood A: A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:990.e1-990.e33.
• [7]Weller DP, Campbell C: Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control. B J Cancer 2009, 101:s55-s59.
• [8]Baron RC, Rimer BK, Breslow RA, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Melillo S, Habarta N, Kalra GP, Chattopadhyay S, Wilson KM, Lee NC, Mullen PD, Coughlin SS, Briss PA, and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services: Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2008, 35:S34-S55.
• [9]Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell E: Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010., 14MR000013. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5
• [10]Knapp P, Raynor DK, Silcock J, Parkinson B: Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - A randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2011, 9:89. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Robinson EJ, Kerr CE, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Beck SR, Rowley MG: Lay public understands of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9:1-192. iii-iv
• [12]Featherstone K, Donovan JL: Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998, 317:1177-1180.
• [13]Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Jackson JC, Hewison J, Thornton J: Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assessment 1998, 2(i-vi):1-132.
• [14]Williams B, Entwistle V, Haddow G, Wells M: Promoting research participation: why not advertise altruism? Soc Sci Med 2008, 66:1451-1456.
• [15]Allin S, Masseria C, Mossialos E: Inequality in health care use among older people in the United Kingdom: an analysis of panel data. In LSE health Working Paper No. 1/2006. London: School of Economics and Political Science; 2006. [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19262/1/LSEHWP1.pdf webcite]
• [16]Rapport F, Storey M, Porter A, Snooks H, Jones K, Peconi J, Sanchez A, Siebert S, Thorne K, Clement C, Russell I: Qualitative research within trials: developing a standard operating procedure for a clinical trials unit. Trials 2013, 14:54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, Jewell D, Powell P, Gillatt D, Dedman D, Mills N, Smith M, Noble S, Lane A: Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7:1-88.
• [18]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337:a1655.
• [19]Gibbs A: Focus Groups. Social Res Update 1997., 19(Winter). [http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html webcite]
• [20]Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Quali Methods 2006, 5:80-92.
• [21]O’Reilly M, Parker N: ‘Unsatisfactory Saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res 2013, 13:190-197.
• [22]Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative Methods for Health Research. London: Sage; 2004.
• [23]Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L: Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit; 2003. http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/a_quality_framework_tcm6-38740.pdf webcite
• [24]Dey I: Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic; 1999.
• [25]Morse J: Designing Funded Qualitative Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994:220-235.
• [26]Angen MJ: Evaluating interpretive inquiry: reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Quali Health Res 2000, 10:378-395.
• [27]Sandelowski M: Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Adv Nurs Sci 1993, 16:1-8.
• [28]Shaghagahi A, Bhopal RS, Sheikh A: Approaches to recruiting ‘hard-to-reach’ populations into research: a review of the literature. Health Promo Perspect 2011, 1:86-94.
• [29]Zelenyanszki C: Maximizing screening attendance: a reference guide. North West London Cancer Networkhttp://www.screening.nhs.uk/getdata.php?id=14467 webcite
• [30]Patterson S, Kramo K, Soteriou T, Crawford MJ: The great divide: a qualitative investigation of factors influencing researcher access to potential randomised controlled trial participants in mental health settings. J Men Health 2010, 19:532-541.
• [31]Foy R, Parry J, Duggan A, Delaney B, Wilson S, den Broek NTHL-v, 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. doi:10.1093/fampra/20.1.83