Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients

S. D. Brealey; C. Atwell; S. Bryan; S. Coulton; H. Cox; B. Cross; F. Fylan; A. M. Garratt; Fiona Jane Gilbert; Maureen Grace Charles Gillan; M. Hendry; K. Hood; H. Houston; David King; Veronica Morton; Jo Orchard; Michael Robling; I. T. Russell; D. J. Torgerson; Valerie Wadsworth; C. Wilkinson

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients

S. D. Brealey, C. Atwell, S. Bryan, S. Coulton, H. Cox, B. Cross, F. Fylan, A. M. Garratt, Fiona Jane Gilbert, Maureen Grace Charles Gillan, M. Hendry, K. Hood, H. Houston, David King, Veronica Morton, Jo Orchard, Michael Robling, I. T. Russell, D. J. Torgerson, Valerie WadsworthC. Wilkinson

Applied Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To test the effect of postal randomization on recruitment of patients into a randomized trial in primary care.

Study Design and Setting: General practices used a telephone service to randomize patients in our trial. Delays in the start of recruitment at some sites led us to modify the randomization procedure. When new practices took part patients completed and posted baseline materials to the Trial Secretary in York who performed the randomization and informed those concerned of the allocation.

Results: Of the 647 practices who were invited to take part, 130 (45%) of 288 agreed to participate using telephone randomization and 155 (43%) of 359 using the postal method. These practices recruited 553 patients from November 2002 to October 2004 across 11 sites in the United Kingdom. The postal method reduced the number of patients recruited by a factor of 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-1.20), or 14%. The number of general practitioners working in a practice significantly increased patient recruitment by a factor of 1.12 (1.05-1.20), whereas practice distance from hospital significantly decreased recruitment by a factor of 0.98 (0.97-0.99).

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1046-1051
Number of pages	6
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	60
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003
Publication status	Published - Oct 2007

Keywords

patient recruitment
family practice
randomized controlled trial
magnetic resonance imaging
internal derangement of the knee
negative binomial regression
primary-care
clinical-trials
general-practice
knee
arthroscopy

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

Cite this

Brealey, S. D., Atwell, C., Bryan, S., Coulton, S., Cox, H., Cross, B., Fylan, F., Garratt, A. M., Gilbert, F. J., Gillan, M. G. C., Hendry, M., Hood, K., Houston, H., King, D., Morton, V., Orchard, J., Robling, M., Russell, I. T., Torgerson, D. J., ... Wilkinson, C. (2007). Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(10), 1046-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients. / Brealey, S. D.; Atwell, C.; Bryan, S.; Coulton, S.; Cox, H.; Cross, B.; Fylan, F.; Garratt, A. M.; Gilbert, Fiona Jane; Gillan, Maureen Grace Charles; Hendry, M.; Hood, K.; Houston, H.; King, David; Morton, Veronica; Orchard, Jo; Robling, Michael; Russell, I. T.; Torgerson, D. J.; Wadsworth, Valerie; Wilkinson, C.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 60, No. 10, 10.2007, p. 1046-1051.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Brealey, SD, Atwell, C, Bryan, S, Coulton, S, Cox, H, Cross, B, Fylan, F, Garratt, AM, Gilbert, FJ, Gillan, MGC, Hendry, M, Hood, K, Houston, H, King, D, Morton, V, Orchard, J, Robling, M, Russell, IT, Torgerson, DJ, Wadsworth, V & Wilkinson, C 2007, 'Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 1046-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

Brealey, S. D. ; Atwell, C. ; Bryan, S. ; Coulton, S. ; Cox, H. ; Cross, B. ; Fylan, F. ; Garratt, A. M. ; Gilbert, Fiona Jane ; Gillan, Maureen Grace Charles ; Hendry, M. ; Hood, K. ; Houston, H. ; King, David ; Morton, Veronica ; Orchard, Jo ; Robling, Michael ; Russell, I. T. ; Torgerson, D. J. ; Wadsworth, Valerie ; Wilkinson, C. / Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007 ; Vol. 60, No. 10. pp. 1046-1051.

@article{fbcd140440d54110b116fd80da701f71,

title = "Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients",

abstract = "Objective: To test the effect of postal randomization on recruitment of patients into a randomized trial in primary care.Study Design and Setting: General practices used a telephone service to randomize patients in our trial. Delays in the start of recruitment at some sites led us to modify the randomization procedure. When new practices took part patients completed and posted baseline materials to the Trial Secretary in York who performed the randomization and informed those concerned of the allocation.Results: Of the 647 practices who were invited to take part, 130 (45%) of 288 agreed to participate using telephone randomization and 155 (43%) of 359 using the postal method. These practices recruited 553 patients from November 2002 to October 2004 across 11 sites in the United Kingdom. The postal method reduced the number of patients recruited by a factor of 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-1.20), or 14%. The number of general practitioners working in a practice significantly increased patient recruitment by a factor of 1.12 (1.05-1.20), whereas practice distance from hospital significantly decreased recruitment by a factor of 0.98 (0.97-0.99).Conclusion: Postal randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients into our trial. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "patient recruitment, family practice, randomized controlled trial, magnetic resonance imaging, internal derangement of the knee, negative binomial regression, primary-care, clinical-trials, general-practice, knee, arthroscopy",

author = "Brealey, {S. D.} and C. Atwell and S. Bryan and S. Coulton and H. Cox and B. Cross and F. Fylan and Garratt, {A. M.} and Gilbert, {Fiona Jane} and Gillan, {Maureen Grace Charles} and M. Hendry and K. Hood and H. Houston and David King and Veronica Morton and Jo Orchard and Michael Robling and Russell, {I. T.} and Torgerson, {D. J.} and Valerie Wadsworth and C. Wilkinson",

year = "2007",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003",

language = "English",

volume = "60",

pages = "1046--1051",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients

AU - Brealey, S. D.

AU - Atwell, C.

AU - Bryan, S.

AU - Coulton, S.

AU - Cox, H.

AU - Cross, B.

AU - Fylan, F.

AU - Garratt, A. M.

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

AU - Gillan, Maureen Grace Charles

AU - Hendry, M.

AU - Hood, K.

AU - Houston, H.

AU - King, David

AU - Morton, Veronica

AU - Orchard, Jo

AU - Robling, Michael

AU - Russell, I. T.

AU - Torgerson, D. J.

AU - Wadsworth, Valerie

AU - Wilkinson, C.

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - Objective: To test the effect of postal randomization on recruitment of patients into a randomized trial in primary care.Study Design and Setting: General practices used a telephone service to randomize patients in our trial. Delays in the start of recruitment at some sites led us to modify the randomization procedure. When new practices took part patients completed and posted baseline materials to the Trial Secretary in York who performed the randomization and informed those concerned of the allocation.Results: Of the 647 practices who were invited to take part, 130 (45%) of 288 agreed to participate using telephone randomization and 155 (43%) of 359 using the postal method. These practices recruited 553 patients from November 2002 to October 2004 across 11 sites in the United Kingdom. The postal method reduced the number of patients recruited by a factor of 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-1.20), or 14%. The number of general practitioners working in a practice significantly increased patient recruitment by a factor of 1.12 (1.05-1.20), whereas practice distance from hospital significantly decreased recruitment by a factor of 0.98 (0.97-0.99).Conclusion: Postal randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients into our trial. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

AB - Objective: To test the effect of postal randomization on recruitment of patients into a randomized trial in primary care.Study Design and Setting: General practices used a telephone service to randomize patients in our trial. Delays in the start of recruitment at some sites led us to modify the randomization procedure. When new practices took part patients completed and posted baseline materials to the Trial Secretary in York who performed the randomization and informed those concerned of the allocation.Results: Of the 647 practices who were invited to take part, 130 (45%) of 288 agreed to participate using telephone randomization and 155 (43%) of 359 using the postal method. These practices recruited 553 patients from November 2002 to October 2004 across 11 sites in the United Kingdom. The postal method reduced the number of patients recruited by a factor of 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-1.20), or 14%. The number of general practitioners working in a practice significantly increased patient recruitment by a factor of 1.12 (1.05-1.20), whereas practice distance from hospital significantly decreased recruitment by a factor of 0.98 (0.97-0.99).Conclusion: Postal randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients into our trial. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

KW - patient recruitment

KW - family practice

KW - randomized controlled trial

KW - magnetic resonance imaging

KW - internal derangement of the knee

KW - negative binomial regression

KW - primary-care

KW - clinical-trials

KW - general-practice

KW - knee

KW - arthroscopy

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 1046

EP - 1051

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 10

ER -