An evaluation of the effectiveness of recruitment methods: The staying well after depression randomized controlled trial
An evaluation of the effectiveness of recruitment methods: The staying well after depression randomized controlled trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1740774514521905
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Williams, J. Mark G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Krusche, Adele;von Rohr, Isabelle Rudolf;Williams, J. Mark G.
背景随机对照试验（RCT）被广泛认为是研究心理治疗效果的最有效方法。然而，进行随机对照试验的研究人员通常报告说，在计划的时间范围内招募足够的样本存在困难。为了克服招募困难，研究人员常常被迫扩大招募标准或延长招募阶段，从而增加成本并延迟结果的发表。调查招募策略有效性的研究是有限的，试验常常无法报告有关招募来源和所利用资源的足够细节。目的我们检查了牛津大学抑郁症后保持健康随机对照试验期间实施的策略的有效性，以招募有复发性抑郁症病史的参与者。方法我们描述了所使用的八种招募方法和两个非研究团队发起的其他来源，并检查其在以下方面的有效性：（1）回报，包括联系试验的潜在参与者人数和随机进入试验的人数； (2) 成本效益，包括初始接触和随机参与者的直接财务成本和人力成本； (3) 比较从不同来源招募的个体的社会人口特征。结果对于随机参与者来说，海报广告、网络广告和心理卫生工作者转介是最便宜的方法；然而，每个来源的随机参与者与初始接触者的比例存在显着差异。在网上、通过海报和当地广播电台做广告是招募随后随机参加试验的参与者的最具成本效益的招募方法。研究发现，跨多种来源的广告（饱和度）很重要。 局限性 采用本试验中使用的所有招募方法来获得其他人群（例如目前身体不适或位于其他地理位置的人群）的参与可能并不可行。对于初次联系后无法联系到的参与者，无法获取招募来源。因此，某些招募方法的效率可能比估计的要差。没有分析其他招聘举措的效果和成本，例如为现场资格评估提供差旅费，以及为联系招聘团队但无法及时筛选的候选人提供后续电话。 结论 网站广告导致的随机参与者数量最多，是第二便宜的招聘方法。未来的研究应该评估其他样本招募策略的有效性，以有助于为未来的随机对照试验建立全面的知识基础。
BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as being the most efficient way of investigating the efficacy of psychological therapies. However, researchers conducting RCTs commonly report difficulties in recruiting an adequate sample within planned timescales. In an effort to overcome recruitment difficulties, researchers often are forced to expand their recruitment criteria or extend the recruitment phase, thus increasing costs and delaying publication of results. Research investigating the effectiveness of recruitment strategies is limited, and trials often fail to report sufficient details about the recruitment sources and resources utilized.PurposeWe examined the efficacy of strategies implemented during the Staying Well after Depression RCT in Oxford to recruit participants with a history of recurrent depression.MethodsWe describe eight recruitment methods utilized and two further sources not initiated by the research team and examine their efficacy in terms of (1) the return, including the number of potential participants who contacted the trial and the number who were randomized into the trial; (2) cost-effectiveness, comprising direct financial cost and manpower for initial contacts and randomized participants; and (3) comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of individuals recruited from different sources.ResultsPoster advertising, web-based advertising, and mental health worker referrals were the cheapest methods per randomized participant; however, the ratio of randomized participants to initial contacts differed markedly per source. Advertising online, via posters, and on a local radio station were the most cost-effective recruitment methods for soliciting participants who subsequently were randomized into the trial. Advertising across many sources (saturation) was found to be important.LimitationsIt may not be feasible to employ all the recruitment methods used in this trial to obtain participation from other populations, such as those currently unwell, or in other geographical locations. Recruitment source was unavailable for participants who could not be reached after the initial contact. Thus, it is possible that the efficiency of certain methods of recruitment was poorer than estimated. Efficacy and costs of other recruitment initiatives, such as providing travel expenses to the in-person eligibility assessment and making follow-up telephone calls to candidates who contacted the recruitment team but could not be screened promptly, were not analysed.ConclusionWebsite advertising resulted in the highest number of randomized participants and was the second cheapest method of recruiting. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of recruitment strategies for other samples to contribute to a comprehensive base of knowledge for future RCTs.