'Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment' - the need for more focus on retention: a qualitative study of five trials

Abstract Background Loss to follow-up (attrition) is a frequent problem in clinical trials and can introduce bias or reduce power. So, understanding retention issues and strategies to address these are important. As part of a multi-method project, this qualitative study aimed to explore retention strategies used by trial teams and factors which may influence strategy adoption. Method A purposive sample of active trials was selected from the UK NIHR HTA portfolio of ongoing trials in 2014/2015. Semi-structured interviews with several trial team members from each trial and supplementary interviews with experienced trial managers explored strategies in collecting clinical outcome data and retaining participants. Interview data were analysed thematically using techniques of constant comparison. Results Twenty-two semi-structured interviews with trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, nurses and research administrators revealed strategies used to enhance retention. Some were recognised methods and planned from trial outset whilst others were implemented more responsively. Interviewees placed great value on fostering positive relationships with trial participants to enhance retention. However, these strategies took time which was not always appreciated by the wider trial team or funding bodies. The national focus on recruitment targets in networks posed a challenge to staff and was deemed detrimental to retention. The ‘moral compass’ of individual researchers relied on their own beliefs and values and research experience and the factors affected their confidence to pursue participant data during follow-up. Conclusion The role of trial staff and their underlying behaviours influence retention practices and, combined with emphasis on recruitment targets, can be detrimental to motivation and retention activities. There is a need to consider how to train and support trial staff involved in retention practices and recognition of retention from funding bodies and oversight organisations

Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials:a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators

Abstract Background While patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)’s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU’s role in PPI. Methods A mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors. Results (1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10–50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI. Conclusions While highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported

The provision of dietary and physical activity advice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer:a qualitative study of the experiences and views of health care professionals, patients and partners

PURPOSE: To explore the views and experiences of health care professionals (HCPs), men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and their partners about the provision of advice on diet and physical activity after diagnosis and treatment for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with ten HCPs (Consultant Urological Surgeons, Uro-Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialists and Allied Health Professionals: see Table 1) and sixteen men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and seven of their partners. Data from interviews were thematically analysed using the Framework Approach. RESULTS: The men and their partners provided differing accounts to the HCPs and sometimes to each other concerning the provision of advice on diet and physical activity. Some men were unable to recall receiving such advice from HCPs. Factors impacting upon advice-giving included the perceived lack of an evidence base to support dietary and physical activity advice and the credibility of advice providers. The timing of advice provision was a contentious issue as some HCPs believed that patients might not be willing to receive dietary and physical activity advice at the time of diagnosis, whilst others viewed this an opportune time to provide behaviour change information. Patients concurred with the latter opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Men and their partners would value nutritional and physical activity advice from their HCP, after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Men would prefer to receive this advice at an early stage in their cancer journey and may implement behaviour change if the received advice is clear and evidence-based. HCPs should receive suitable training regarding what information to provide to men and how best to deliver this information

How Does Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Affect Quality of Life?:A Systematic Review

The optimal management of screen-detected, localised prostate cancer remains controversial, related to overtreatment issues of screening and the nonrandomised evidence base. Active surveillance (AS) aims to delay or avoid curative therapy but may potentially harm patients' well-being through living with untreated prostate cancer