IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0288028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Arundel
  • Andrew Mott

Abstract

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020205475).

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Arundel & Andrew Mott, 2023. "Recruitment and retention interventions in surgical and wound care trials: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288028
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288028
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288028&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0288028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.