Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 8;23(1):268.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06218-8.

The development of theory-informed participant-centred interventions to maximise participant retention in randomised controlled trials

Rumana Newlands  1 , Eilidh Duncan  1 , Shaun Treweek  1 , Jim Elliott  2 , Justin Presseau  3   4   5 , Peter Bower  6 , Graeme MacLennan  1 , Margaret Ogden  2 , Mary Wells  7   8 , Miles D Witham  9 , Bridget Young  10 , Katie Gillies  11
Affiliations

The development of theory-informed participant-centred interventions to maximise participant retention in randomised controlled trials

Rumana Newlands et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: A failure of clinical trials to retain participants can influence the trial findings and significantly impact the potential of the trial to influence clinical practice. Retention of participants involves people, often the trial participants themselves, performing a behaviour (e.g. returning a questionnaire or attending a follow-up clinic as part of the research). Most existing interventions that aim to improve the retention of trial participants fail to describe any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) and also whether there was any patient and/or participant input during development. The aim of this study was to address these two problems by developing theory- informed, participant-centred, interventions to improve trial retention.

Methods: This study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy to match participant reported determinants of trial retention to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. The prototype interventions were described and developed in a co-design workshop with trial participants. Acceptability and feasibility (guided by (by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability) of two prioritised retention interventions was explored during a focus group involving a range of trial stakeholders (e.g. trial participants, trial managers, research nurses, trialists, research ethics committee members). Following focus group discussions stakeholders completed an intervention acceptability questionnaire.

Results: Eight trial participants contributed to the co-design of the retention interventions. Four behaviour change interventions were designed: (1) incentives and rewards for follow-up clinic attendance, (2) goal setting for improving questionnaire return, (3) participant self-monitoring to improve questionnaire return and/or clinic attendance, and (4) motivational information to improve questionnaire return and clinic attendance. Eighteen trial stakeholders discussed the two prioritised interventions. The motivational information intervention was deemed acceptable and considered straightforward to implement whilst the goal setting intervention was viewed as less clear and less acceptable.

Conclusions: This is the first study to develop interventions to improve trial retention that are based on the accounts of trial participants and also conceptualised and developed as behaviour change interventions (to encourage attendance at trial research visit or return a trial questionnaire). Further testing of these interventions is required to assess effectiveness.

Keywords: Behaviour; Clinical trials; Intervention development; Retention; Theory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ST is an Editor-in-Chief of Trials. No other competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Outline of the process for development the theory-informed, participant-centred, retention interventions
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Visual presentation of the co-design workshop discussion
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-32. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. https://www.orrca.org.uk/Home/ - searched 4th September 2021. Last accessed 30 Mar 2022.
    1. Walters SJ, Bonacho Dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby I, Bortolami O, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, Brueton V, Devane D, Elliott J, Galvin S, Gamble C, Gardner H, Healy P, Hood K, Jordan J, Lanz D, Maeso B, Roberts A, Skene I, Soulsby I, Stewart D, Torgerson D, Treweek S, Whiting C, Wren S, Worrall A, Gillies K. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2019;20(1):593. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3687-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Coffey T, Duncan EM, Morgan H, et al. Behavioural approaches to recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a systematic mapping reviewBMJ Open 2022;12:e054854. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054854. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources