What aspects of trial recruitment processes could be changed to improve retention?
- “The very few who were not really motivated to participate in the study but didn’t want to say no, or just ‘got it over with’, will be practically impossible to retain. I guess as trailists there is a need to think about whether we want to recruit to target regardless of their intention to remain in the trial or not. Or whether recruiters explore and assess intent to remain in the trial, almost as an inclusion/exclusion factor.” (Frontline staff or other staff involved or invested in trial retention (e.g. Research Nurse, Trial Manager, regulatory or oversight role such as Sponsor or Research Director))
- “I’m also happy to have the extra tests as I feel more comforted knowing that I am being more closely monitored than if I was just on standard treatment, so there is definitely a selfish motive too! I am also very interested to know if the outcome of the study and how it might shape future treatment.” (Patient or public member involved in a trial (as a participant or parent/carer of a participant, or as a contributor to design/delivery of trial) “I have found that the local CRN are far more interested in helping and supporting recruitment rather than follow up. Where support is normally available to recruit participants it often disappears when follow up appointments are due.” (A trial methodologist)
- “Recruitment is not about gaining numbers for the trust! Nurses, especially are under pressure to meet targets and end up recruiting people who they feel probably are not really on board but sign them up anyway! From what I have seen, recruiting just for the numbers can have massive consequences for retention and whether the study is completed.” (Frontline staff or other staff involved or invested in trial retention (e.g. Research Nurse, Trial Manager, regulatory or oversight role such as Sponsor or Research Director))