Recruitment and retention interventions in surgical and wound care trials: A systematic review

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 18; no. 7; p. e0288028
• Main Authors: Arundel, Catherine, Mott, Andrew
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 20.07.2023; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Bias; Care and treatment; Clinical trials; Design; Evaluation; Heterogeneity; Intervention; Medicine and Health Sciences; Meta-analysis; Physical Sciences; Populations; Recruitment; Research and Analysis Methods; Retention; Reviews; Social Sciences; Systematic review; Wound healing; Wounds; Wounds and injuries; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288028

Recruitment and retention to surgical trials has previously been reported to be problematic, resulting in research waste. Surgery often results in wounds, meaning these trials are likely to have similar populations. There is currently no systematic assessment of effective strategies for these populations and hence, systematic assessment of these was deemed to be of importance. A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials undertaken to test an intervention to improve recruitment or retention within a surgical or wound based host randomised controlled trial. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ORRCA Database and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form. A narrative synthesis was used due to a lack of heterogeneity between strategies which prevented meta-analysis. A total of 2133 records were identified which resulted in 13 ultimately being included in the review; seven on recruitment and six on retention. All included studies were based within surgical host trials. Four of the seven recruitment studies focussed on the provision of consent information to participants, one focussed on study set up and one on staff training, with only one relating to consent information finding any significant effect. A range of retention strategies were assessed by the included studies, however only two found (pen vs no pen, mailing strategies) found any significant effect. The included studies within a trial were all conducted within surgical trials. There was significant variation in strategies used, and limited replications and therefore further assessment may be warranted. Given the lack of studies embedded within wound care trials, further studies in this area are recommended. PROSPERO (CRD42020205475).