Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.<p></p> Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.<p></p> Data sources Sources searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, C2-SPECTR, ERIC, PreMEDLINE, Cochrane Methodology Register, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, WHO trials platform, Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) conference proceedings and a survey of all UK clinical trial research units.<p></p> Review: methods Included trials were randomised evaluations of strategies to improve retention embedded within host randomised trials. The primary outcome was retention of trial participants. Data from trials were pooled using the fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses were used to explore the heterogeneity and to determine whether there were any differences in effect by the type of strategy.<p></p> Results: 38 retention trials were identified. Six broad types of strategies were evaluated. Strategies that increased postal questionnaire responses were: adding, that is, giving a monetary incentive (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28) and higher valued incentives (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22). Offering a monetary incentive, that is, an incentive given on receipt of a completed questionnaire, also increased electronic questionnaire response (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38). The evidence for shorter questionnaires (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08) and questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14) is less clear. On the basis of the results of single trials, the following strategies appeared effective at increasing questionnaire response: recorded delivery of questionnaires (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87); a ‘package’ of postal communication strategies (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67) and an open trial design (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63). There is no good evidence that the following strategies impact on trial response/retention: adding a non-monetary incentive (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02); offering a non-monetary incentive (RR=0.99; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03); ‘enhanced’ letters (RR=1.01; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05); monetary incentives compared with offering prize draw entry (RR=1.04; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19); priority postal delivery (RR=1.02; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09); behavioural motivational strategies (RR=1.08; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24); additional reminders to participants (RR=1.03; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06) and questionnaire question order (RR=1.00, 0.97 to 1.02). Also based on single trials, these strategies do not appear effective: a telephone survey compared with a monetary incentive plus questionnaire (RR=1.08; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24); offering a charity donation (RR=1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.32); sending sites reminders (RR=0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11); sending questionnaires early (RR=1.10; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.26); longer and clearer questionnaires (RR=1.01, 0.95 to 1.07) and participant case management by trial assistants (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04).<p></p> Conclusions: Most of the trials evaluated questionnaire response rather than ways to improve participants return to site for follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increase postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some strategies need further evaluation. Application of these results would depend on trial context and follow-up procedures.<p></p&gt

Identifying additional studies for a systematic review of retention strategies in randomised controlled trials: making contact with trials units and trial methodologists

BACKGROUND: Search strategies for systematic reviews aim to identify all evidence relevant to the research question posed. Reports of methodological research can be difficult to find leading to biased results in systematic reviews of research methodology. Evidence suggests that contact with investigators can help to identify unpublished research. To identify additional eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for a Cochrane systematic review of strategies to improve retention in RCTs, we conducted a survey of UK clinical trials units (CTUs) and made contact with RCT methodologists. METHODS: Key contacts for all UK CTUs were sent a personalised email with a short questionnaire and summary protocol of the Cochrane methodology review. The questionnaire asked whether a RCT evaluating strategies to improve retention embedded in a RCT had ever been conducted by the CTU. Questions about the stage of completion and publication of such RCTs were included. The summary protocol outlined the aims, eligibility criteria, examples of types of retention strategies, and the primary outcome for the systematic review. Personal communication with RCT methodologists and presentations of preliminary results of the review at conferences were also used to identify additional eligible RCTs. We checked the results of our standard searches to see if eligible studies identified through these additional methods were also found using our standard searches. RESULTS: We identified 14 of the 38 RCTs included in the Cochrane methodology review by contacting trials units and methodologists. Eleven of the 14 RCTs identified by these methods were either published in grey literature, in press or unpublished. Three remaining RCTs were fully published at the time. Six of the RCTs identified were not found through any other searches. The RCTs identified represented data for 6 of 14 RCTs of incentive strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the review), and 6 of 14 RCTs of communication strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the Cochrane review). Data were unavailable for two of the RCTs identified. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological evaluations embedded in RCTs may be unpublished, published in the grey literature or where published, poorly indexed in bibliographic databases. To identify such studies and minimise selection bias in systematic reviews of methodological evaluations, reviewers should consider contacting CTUs and trial methodologists

Investigation of the role of morphology on the magnetic properties of Ca2Mn3O8 materials

Ca2Mn3O8 exhibits a complex layered structure comprised of Mn3O84- layers separated by Ca2+ ions. In contrast with the more traditional triangular Delafossite layered materials the Mn3O84- layers additionally exhibit an ordered vacancy which forms a 'bow-tie' like arrangement of the Mn4+ ions. We report a comprehensive study of the magnetic properties of a series of Ca2Mn3O8 materials with different morphologies. EXAFS and XANES analysis confirm no differences in either manganese environment or oxidation state between materials. Apparent differences in magnetic order from SQUID magnetometry can be rationalised by uncompensated surface spins arising as a result of changes to the surface:volume ratio between morphologies. Furthermore, these data suggest these materials are potentially frustrated in nature, due to the triangular connectivity of Mn4+ spins with a simple ‘spin-up/spin-down’ (↑↓) antiferromagnetic model unable to explain the data collected

Best practice guidance for the use of strategies improved retention in randomised trials developed from two consensus workshops

OBJECTIVE: To develop best practice guidance for the use of retention strategies in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Consensus development workshops. SETTING: Two UK Clinical Trials Units. PARTICIPANTS: 66 statisticians, clinicians, RCT coordinators, research scientists, research assistants, and data managers associated with RCTs. METHODS: The consensus development workshops were based on the consensus development conference method used to develop best practice for treatment of medical conditions. Workshops commenced with a presentation of the evidence for: incentives, communication, questionnaire format, behavioural, case management and methodological retention strategies identified by a Cochrane review and associated qualitative study. Three simultaneous group discussions followed, focused on: a) how convinced the workshop participants were by the evidence for retention strategies, b) barriers to the use of effective retention strategies, c) types of RCT follow-up that retention strategies could be used for, and d) strategies for future research. Summaries of each group discussion were fed back to the workshop. Coded content for both workshops were compared for agreement and disagreement. Agreed consensus on best practice guidance for retention was identified. RESULTS: Workshop participants agreed best practice guidance for the use of small financial incentives to improve response to postal questionnaires in RCTs. Use of 2nd class post was thought to be adequate for postal communication with RCT participants. The most relevant validated questionnaire was considered best practice for collecting RCT data. Barriers identified for the use of effective retention strategies were: the small improvements seen in questionnaire response for the addition of monetary incentives, and perceptions among trialists that some communication strategies are outdated. Furthermore, there was resistance to change existing retention practices thought to be effective. Face to face and electronic follow-up technologies were identified as retention strategies for further research. CONCLUSIONS: We developed best practice guidance for the use of retention strategies in RCTs and identified potential barriers to the use of effective strategies. The extent of agreement on best practice is limited by the variability in the currently available evidence. This guidance will need updating as new retention strategies are developed and evaluated

The suppression of CMR in Nd(Mn1−xCox)AsO0.95F0.05

This research is supported by the EPSRC (research grant EP/L002493/1). We also acknowledge the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) for provision of beam time at ISIS.Peer reviewedPostprin

Magnetic Phase Separation in the Oxypnictide Sr2Cr1.85 Mn1.15As2O2

The authors thank the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) for provision of neutron beamtime at the ILL under the experiment code 5-31-2665. Data are available from ILL at DOI:10.5291/ILL-DATA.5-31-2665.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Use of strategies to improve retention in primary care randomised trials: a qualitative study with in-depth interviews

Objective To explore the strategies used to improve retention in primary care randomised trials.<p></p> Design Qualitative in-depth interviews and thematic analysis.<p></p> Participants 29 UK primary care chief and principal investigators, trial managers and research nurses.<p></p> Methods In-depth face-to-face interviews.<p></p> Results Primary care researchers use incentive and communication strategies to improve retention in trials, but were unsure of their effect. Small monetary incentives were used to increase response to postal questionnaires. Non-monetary incentives were used although there was scepticism about the impact of these on retention. Nurses routinely used telephone communication to encourage participants to return for trial follow-up. Trial managers used first class post, shorter questionnaires and improved questionnaire designs with the aim of improving questionnaire response. Interviewees thought an open trial design could lead to biased results and were negative about using behavioural strategies to improve retention. There was consensus among the interviewees that effective communication and rapport with participants, participant altruism, respect for participant's time, flexibility of trial personnel and appointment schedules and trial information improve retention. Interviewees noted particular challenges with retention in mental health trials and those involving teenagers.<p></p> Conclusions The findings of this qualitative study have allowed us to reflect on research practice around retention and highlight a gap between such practice and current evidence. Interviewees describe acting from experience without evidence from the literature, which supports the use of small monetary incentives to improve the questionnaire response. No such evidence exists for non-monetary incentives or first class post, use of which may need reconsideration. An exploration of barriers and facilitators to retention in other research contexts may be justified.<p></p&gt

Extending the role of a healthcare digital library environment to support orthopaedic research

A digital archive, together with its users and its contents, does not exist in isolation; there is a cycle of activities which provides the context for the archive’s existence. In arguing for the broadening of the traditional view of digital libraries as merely collections towards the processes of collecting and deploying, we have developed an extended digital library environment for orthopaedic surgeons which bridges the gap between the undertaking of experimental work and the dissemination of its results through electronic publication