Abstract
Background and Objective: Recruitment to randomized trials is often difficult, but few studies have investigated
interventions to improve recruitment. In a randomized trial nested within a trial
of treatments for localized prostate cancer, we investigated the comparative effectiveness
and cost-effectiveness of nurses and surgeons in recruiting patients.
Methods: Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to see a nurse or urologic surgeon
for an “information appointment” in which they were asked to consent to the ProtecT
treatment trial comparing surgery, radiotherapy, and active monitoring. Analysis was
conducted by intention to treat using chi-square with 95% confidence intervals for
proportions and differences between groups. An economic evaluation was performed using
the duration of appointments and grade of recruitment staff.
Results: Case-finding identified 167 men with localized prostate cancer. One hundred fifty
(90%) took part in the recruitment trial. There was a 4.0% difference between nurses
and surgeons in recruitment rates (67% nurses, 71% urologists, 95% CI −10.8% to +18.8%,
P = .60). Cost-minimization analysis showed that nurses spent longer times with patients
but surgeon costs were higher and nurses often supported surgeon-led clinics.
Conclusion: Nurses were as effective and more cost-effective recruiters than urologic surgeons.
This suggests an increased role for nurses in recruiting patients to randomized trials.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Threats to the validity of clinical trials employing enrichment strategies for sample selection.Control Clin Trials. 1998; 19: 178-187
- Patterns of patient enrollment in randomized controlled trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 877-883
- Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure.BMJ. 1991; 303: 969-971
- Randomised controlled trials in general practice: gold standard or fool's gold?.BMJ. 1995; 311: 1382-1383
- Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography.Control Clin Trials. 1997; 18: 328-352
- Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 1143-1156
- Recruitment of patients with lung cancer into a randomised clinical trial: experience at two centers, on behalf of the Big Lung Trial Steering Committee.Thorax. 2000; 55: 463-465
- Recruitment strategies in the women's health trial: feasibility study in minority populations: for the WHT: FSMP Investigators Group.Control Clin Trials. 1998; 19: 461-476
- Recruitment of participants for the Estrogen Replacement and Atherosclerosis (ERA) Trial: a comparison of costs, yields, and participant characteristics from community- and hospital-based recruitment strategies.Control Clin Trials. 2001; 22: 13-25
- Participant recruitment in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT): for the ALLHAT Research Group.Control Clin Trials. 2001; 22: 674-686
- Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials.J Clin Oncol. 1996; 14: 984-986
- Randomized trial of informed consent and recruitment for clinical trials in the immediate preoperative period.Anesthesiology. 1999; 91: 969-978
- How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?.Eur J Cancer. 1999; 35: 1187-1193
- The conflicting roles of clinicians versus investigators in HIV randomised clinical trials.Culture Health Sexual. 2001; 3: 67-79
- New approach for recruitment into randomised controlled trials.Lancet (North Am Ed). 1993; 341: 812-813
- Nurses' unique roles in randomized clinical trials.J Prof Nurs. 1999; 15: 106-115
- Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: protect (prostate testing for cancer and treatment study).BMJ. 2002; 325: 766-770
- Patients' perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study.Control Clin Trials. 2003; 24: 272-282
Article info
Footnotes
☆ProtecT Study Group: John Anderson, Miranda Benney, Lucy Brindle, Sally Burton, Daniel Dedman, Ingrid Emmerson, Cath Ferguson, Stephen Frankel, John Goepel, Louise Goodwin, John Graham, David Gunnell, Christine Hardy, Helen Harris, Barbara Hattrick, Peter Holding, David Jewell, Clare Kennedy, Sue Kilner, Peter Kirkbride, Hing Leung, Teresa Mewes, Jon Oxley, Ian Pedley, Andrew Robinson, Mary Robinson, Liz Salter, Mark Sidaway, Carol Torrington, Lyn Wilkinson, Andrea Wilson.
Identification
Copyright
© 2003 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
