RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Recruitment cost and outcomes for an arthritis work disability prevention randomized clinical trial
The Work It study
AlHeresh, R., Vaughan, M. W., Brenner, I. H., & Keysor, J. (2021). Recruitment cost and outcomes for an arthritis work disability prevention randomized clinical trial: The Work It study. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 24, Article 100862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100862
Background: Despite the recommendations to increase recruitment of participants into clinical trials, investigators face costly challenges in trials investigating work disability interventions for people with arthritis and rheumatological conditions. This study aims to evaluate the recruitment costs and outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of an arthritis work disability prevention program conducted between 2011 and 2015, to inform planning and monitoring recruitment in similar studies.
Methods: Data were obtained from enrollment and financial records pertaining to recruitment costs for each recruitment approach employed. The cost for each recruitment method was calculated for total cost and cost per number of participants screened, eligible, and enrolled in the trial. Then the yield of each possible recruitment method was also determined based on the ratio of the number of randomized participants divided by the number of people contacted through each recruitment method. Finally, the.
Results: Recruitment rate was lower than projected. Community advertising, specifically newspapers, was the most successful method of recruitment in terms of numbers, but social media, specifically Craigslist, was the least costly method used to recruit. Some social media approaches, including Facebook and LinkedIn, yielded few if any participants. Recruitment efforts used successfully in the past are not always effective.
Conclusions: Costs to recruit large numbers of people with arthritis into clinical trials are high. Investigators are encouraged to monitor recruitment efforts and evaluate the costs and outcomes of their strategies throughout the study period. Close consideration to recruitment costs should be considered as part of the research fiscal resources prior to and during the study period for long-term outcomes like work disability.