Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND Patients and clinicians need reliable, up-to-date information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the costs and benefits of treatments. Recruitment difficulties arise when clinicians do not invite patients to participate in trials. OBJECTIVES Primary: to assess the evidence for the effect of disincentives and incentives on the extent to which clinicians invite eligible patients to participate in RCTs of healthcare interventions. Secondary: to assess the evidence in relation to stated willingness to invite participation. SEARCH STRATEGY 1. The Cochrane Methodology Register and Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews were searched in May 2006 and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Research Register and ClinicalTrialsGov in April 2005.2. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED were searched in April 2005.3. Reference lists of included studies were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies exploring the effect of (dis)incentives on clinicians' views and recruitment-related activity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The information about included studies was insufficient for a full assessment of quality. Data on (dis)incentives were extracted and association with recruitment tested. MAIN RESULTS No RCTs of interventions were identified. Eleven observational studies were included - two medical records reviews, one matched pair study, one clinician interview study, two studies documenting clinicians' decisions and five postal surveys. Three measures of recruitment were used, invitation to participate, entry into RCT and reported entry to RCT. Five studies explored the effect of patient characteristics. The effect of age and prognosis varied between trials. Six studies considered the association between clinicians' views and recruitment. Clinicians who agreed to participate because they were acquainted with the researchers were less likely to participate than those otherwise motivated (1 study, 2-sided p = 0.04 Fisher's exact test) and (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.2 to 0.9, 1 study). Clinicians who had recruited were more likely to report some difficulties including "trials involve extra work" (OR 92.94, 95% CI 4.54 - 1902.11; p </= 0.01, 1 study) and "inviting patients to participate is embarrassing" (chi-square 15.55, df = 1, p < 0.0001, 1 study). The effect of the need to discuss clinical uncertainty was unclear but concern that the doctor-patient relationship would be adversely affected by participation was a deterrent (chi-square = 7.25, df = 1, p = 0.007, 1 study). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The impact of factors varied across studies. Researchers need to be aware that aspects of the design and conduct of trials can affect clinicians' willingness to invite patients to participate. Further research is needed.

[1]  Alejandro R. Jadad,et al.  Randomized controlled trials , 2007 .

[2]  L. J. Costa,et al.  Negative results in cancer clinical trials--equivalence or poor accrual? , 2004, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  P. Philip,et al.  Factors associated with breast cancer clinical trials participation and enrollment at a large academic medical center. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  H. Cohen,et al.  Barriers to clinical trial participation by older women with breast cancer. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  I Roberts,et al.  Strategies to improve recruitment to research studies. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  A. Richardson,et al.  Factors affecting general practitioner involvement in a randomised controlled trial in primary care. , 2002, The New Zealand medical journal.

[7]  M. Numans,et al.  Participation and successful patient recruitment in primary care. , 2001, The Journal of family practice.

[8]  C. Stiller,et al.  Haematologists' approaches to the management of adolescents and young adults with acute leukaemia , 2000, British journal of haematology.

[9]  S. Rosenzweig,et al.  Ethics of clinical trials. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  N Colabianchi,et al.  Factors that predict the referral of breast cancer patients onto clinical trials by their surgeons and medical oncologists. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  P. LoRusso,et al.  Accrual to breast cancer clinical trials at a university-affiliated hospital in metropolitan Detroit. , 1999, American journal of clinical oncology.

[12]  G. Albers,et al.  Ethics in Clinical Trials , 1998 .

[13]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[14]  R. Souhami,et al.  Clinicians' attitudes to clinical trials of cancer therapy. , 1997, European journal of cancer.

[15]  M. Hjorth,et al.  Physicians' attitudes toward clinical trials and their relationship to patient accrual in a Nordic multicenter study on myeloma. , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[16]  R J Cook,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1995, JAMA.

[17]  K. Taylor,et al.  Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: results of a survey of the 1,737 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group investigators. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Enrollment in clinical trials: institutional factors affecting enrollment in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST). , 1992, Controlled clinical trials.

[19]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Fate of Research Studies , 1992, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[20]  A. Rademaker,et al.  Oncologists' reluctance to accrue patients onto clinical trials: an Illinois Cancer Center study. , 1991, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  D. Kinne Primary treatment for breast cancer. , 1991, Seminars in surgical oncology.

[22]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .

[23]  Taylor Km The doctor's dilemma: physician participation in randomized clinical trials. , 1985, Cancer treatment reports.

[24]  W Wood,et al.  Selection bias in clinical trials. , 1985, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  M. Charlson,et al.  Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation. , 1984, British medical journal.

[26]  C L Soskolne,et al.  Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  E. McFadden,et al.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group , 1982, American journal of clinical oncology.

[28]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? , 1975 .

[29]  C. Hogan,et al.  General practitioners' views on patient care research. , 2000, Australian family physician.

[30]  R. Prescott,et al.  Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[31]  C. J. Williams,et al.  Introducing new treatments for cancer : practical, ethical and legal problems , 1992 .

[32]  R. Winn,et al.  An evaluation of physician determinants in the referral of patients for cancer clinical trials in the community setting. , 1984, Progress in clinical and biological research.

[33]  J. Marks,et al.  Recruitment of patients to cooperative group clinical trials. , 1980, Cancer clinical trials.

[34]  D. Sackett Bias in analytic research. , 1979, Journal of chronic diseases.