SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Witham MD, Band MM, Price RJG, Fulton RL, Clarke CL, Donnan PT, Soiza RL, Cvoro V. Clin. Trials 2018; 15(6): 551-556.

Affiliation

NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Society for Clinical Trials, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1740774518803558

PMID

30260246

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS Recruitment to trials of intervention for older people who fall is challenging. Evidence suggests that the word falls has negative connotations for older people, and this may present a barrier to engaging with trials in this area. We therefore tested whether a participant information sheet that minimised reference to falls could improve recruitment rates.

METHODS We conducted a study within a trial, embedded within a randomised controlled trial of vitamin K versus placebo to improve postural sway in patients aged 65 and over with a history of falls. Potential participants were identified from primary care lists in 14 practices and were randomised to receive either a standard participant information sheet or an information sheet minimising use of the word falls, instead focussing on maintenance of health, fitness and balance. The primary outcome for this embedded trial was the proportion of responses expressing interest in participating received in each arm. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of those contacted attending a screening visit, consenting at screening, and the proportion contacted who were randomised into the main trial.

RESULTS In all, 4145 invitations were sent, with an overall response rate of 444 (10.7%). In all, 2148 individuals received the new information sheet (minimising reference to falls); 1997 received the standard information sheet. There was no statistically significant difference in response rate between those individuals sent the new information sheet and those sent the standard information sheet (10.1% vs 11.4%; difference 1.3% (95% confidence interval -0.6% to 3.2%); p = 0.19). Similarly, we found no statistically significant difference between the percentage of those who attended and consented at screening in the two groups (2.1% vs 2.7%; difference 0.6% (95% confidence interval: -0.4% to 1.6%); p = 0.20), and no statistically significant difference between the percentage randomised in the two groups (2.0% vs 2.6%; difference 0.6% (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 1.6%); p = 0.20) Conclusions Use of a participant information sheet minimising reference to falls did not lead to a greater response rate in this trial targeting older people with a history of falls.


Language: en

Keywords

Falls; participant information sheet; recruitment; study within a trial

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print