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 Jul 30;23(1):614.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06521-4.

A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs)

Joanne Coyle #  1 , Amy Rogers #  2 , Rachel Copland  1 , Giorgia De Paoli  1 , Thomas M MacDonald  1 , Isla S Mackenzie  1 ; Trials@Home Consortium
Affiliations

A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs)

Joanne Coyle et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) are clinical trials where all or most trial activities occur in or near participants' homes instead of hospitals or research sites. While more convenient for participants, DCTs may offer limited opportunities to build trust with investigators and trial teams. This qualitative analysis explored DCT stakeholder views to inform strategies for maximising participant recruitment, retention, and adherence.

Methods: A secondary analysis of original interview transcripts focused on participant engagement: recruitment, retention, and adherence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including trial managers and administrators, investigators, nurses, vendors, and patient representatives. Interview data were coded using a thematic approach to generate descriptive themes.

Results: Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Three components of participant engagement in DCTs were identified: identifying and attracting potential participants, retaining participants and encouraging adherence, and involvement of patients and the public. Interviewees believed that a potential participant's beliefs about research value and their trust in the research team strongly influenced the likelihood of taking part in a DCT. Early involvement of patients was identified as one way to gauge participant priorities. However, perceived burden was seen as a barrier to recruitment. Factors influencing retention and adherence were related to the same underlying motivators that drove recruitment: personal values, circumstances, and burden. Being part of a DCT should not conflict with the original motivations to participate.

Conclusion: Recruitment, retention, and adherence in DCTs are driven by factors that have previously been found to affect conventional clinical trials. Increasing patient and public involvement can address many of these factors. In contrast to conventional trials, DCTs are perceived as requiring greater emphasis on communication, and contact, to engender trust between participants and researchers despite a relative lack of in-person interaction.

Keywords: Adherence; DCT; Decentralised clinical trials; Qualitative interviews; Recruitment; Retention; Virtual trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare research income to their institution from Menarini, IMI, EMA, NIHR HTA, BHF, Amgen, RTI, CSO Scotland, Tenovus Scotland, George Clinical, Sanofi, and HDR UK, University of Oxford, and consultancy income to their institution from AstraZeneca. ISM declares personal consultancy income from AstraZeneca.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic representation of a participant-centred view of DCT recruitment, retention, and adherence
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Coyle J, Rogers A, Copland R, et al. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 10.1111/bcp.15003 Published online 23 July 2021.
    1. Steinhubl SR, Wolff-Hughes DL, Nilsen W, Iturriaga E, Califf RM. Digital clinical trials: creating a vision for the future. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:126. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0203-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vat LE, Finlay T. Reviewing of existing methods for monitoring and evaluation patient engagement. PARADIGM (Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines). Published October 2018. Accessed 16 June 2022. https://imi-paradigm.eu/project-deliverables/
    1. Sheridan R, Martin-Kerry J, Hudson J, Parker A, Bower P, Knapp P. Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials. 2020;21(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wong CA, Song WB, Jiao M, et al. Strategies for research participant engagement: a synthetic review and conceptual framework. Clin Trials. 2021;18(4):457–465. doi: 10.1177/17407745211011068. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources