|
Recruitment characteristics
|
Number of patients screened for trial participation
|
Used to generate randomisation rate outcome
|
|
Number of patients randomised into the trial
|
Used to generate randomisation rate, recruitment rate and dropout outcomes
|
|
Number of patients who drop out
|
Used to generate dropout outcome
|
|
Number of sites used for recruitment
|
Used to generate recruitment rate outcome
|
|
Continent of recruitment
|
Recruitment has been shown to differ between countries [1, 2]
|
|
Recruitment strategy
|
The recruitment strategies/methods adopted by trials may affect recruitment efficiency [3]
|
|
Profession of the recruiter
|
The profession of the recruiter may play a role in willingness of patients to take part in trials [2, 4]. Some professions have been described as ‘gatekeeping’ during the recruitment process [5]
|
|
Number of recruiters per site
|
The number of people responsible for recruitment may reduce recruitment efficiency [6,7,8,9]
|
|
Trial characteristics
|
Publication date
|
There is evidence to suggest recruitment of stroke survivors for clinical trials is becoming less efficient [10, 11]
|
|
Type of intervention
|
The treatments on offer can be a motivating factor for potential participants [12, 13]
|
|
Targeted impairment
|
|
Control condition
|
|
Stroke survivor residence
|
Recruitment from a community setting may lead to more efficient recruitment to RCTs [11]. Recruitment of acute stroke survivors within a hospital setting has been highlighted as a problematic recruitment area [10, 11]
|
|
Stage of rehabilitation
|
|
Funding support
|
There are potential issues of bias when certain funding bodies are used [14]. Trialists may be influenced by institution pressures to secure funding [15]
|
|
Ethics approval
|
Trialists are concerned by the impact of research governance on the recruitment process [15, 16]
|
