Exploring reasons for recruitment failure in clinical trials: a qualitative study with clinical trial stakeholders in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada

BACKGROUND

Poor participant recruitment is the most frequent reason for premature discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), particularly if they are investigator-initiated. The aims of this qualitative study were to investigate (1) the views of clinical trial stakeholders from three different countries regarding reasons for recruitment failure in RCTs and (2) how these compare and contrast with the causes identified in a previous systematic review of RCT publications.

METHODS

From August 2015 to November 2016, we conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of clinical trial stakeholders. This included investigators based in Germany (n = 9), Switzerland (n = 6) and Canada (n = 1) with personal experience of a discontinued RCT and 33 other stakeholders (e.g., representatives of ethics committees, clinical trial units, pharmaceutical industry) in Switzerland. Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees identified a total of 29 different reasons for recruitment failure. Overoptimistic recruitment estimates, too narrow eligibility criteria, lack of engagement of recruiters/trial team, lack of competence/training/experience of recruiters, insufficient initial funding, and high burden for trial participants were mentioned most frequently. The interview findings largely confirm the previous systematic review on published reasons for recruitment failure. However, eight new reasons for recruitment failure were identified in the interviews, which led to the checklist of reasons for recruitment failure being revised and a new category describing research environment-related factors being added.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the diversity of often interlinked reasons for recruitment failure in RCTs. Integrating the findings of this interview study with a previous systematic review of RCT publications led to a comprehensive, structured checklist of empirically-informed reasons for recruitment failure. The checklist may be useful to guide further research on interventions to improve participant recruitment in RCTs and helpful for trial investigators, research ethics committees, and funding agencies when assessing trial feasibility with respect to recruitment.

Re-randomization increased recruitment and provided similar treatment estimates as parallel designs in trials of febrile neutropenia

Objective

Re-randomization trials allow patients to be re-enrolled for multiple treatment episodes. However, it remains uncertain to what extent re-randomization improves recruitment compared to parallel group designs or whether treatment estimates might be affected.

Study Design and Setting

We evaluated trials included in a recent Cochrane review of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for patients with febrile neutropenia. We assessed the recruitment benefits of re-randomization trials; compared treatment effect estimates between re-randomization and parallel group designs; and assessed whether re-randomization led to higher rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up in subsequent episodes.

Results

We included 14 trials (5 re-randomization and 9 parallel group). The re-randomization trials recruited a median of 25% (range 16–66%) more episodes on average than they would have under a parallel-group design. Treatment effect estimates were similar between re-randomization and parallel group trials across all outcomes, though confidence intervals were wide. The re-randomization trials in this review reported no loss to follow-up and low rates of non-compliance (median 1.7%, range 0–8.9%).

Conclusions

In the setting of febrile neutropenia, re-randomization increased recruitment while providing similar estimates of treatment effect to parallel group trials, with minimal loss to follow-up or non-compliance. It appears to be safe and efficient alternative to parallel group designs in this setting.

A systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable

OBJECTIVE

To collect and classify reported reasons for recruitment failure in discontinued randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess reporting quality.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (2010-2014) and a previous cohort of RCTs for published RCTs reporting trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Teams of two investigators selected eligible RCTs working independently and extracted information using standardized forms. We used an iterative approach to classify reasons for poor recruitment.

RESULTS

We included 172 RCTs discontinued due to poor recruitment (including 26 conference abstracts and 63 industry-funded RCTs). Of those, 131 (76%) reported one or more reasons for discontinuation due to poor recruitment. We identified 28 different reasons for recruitment failure; most frequently mentioned were overestimation of prevalence of eligible participants and prejudiced views of recruiters and participants on trial interventions. Few RCTs reported relevant details about the recruitment process such as how eligible participants were identified, the number of patients assessed for eligibility, and who actually recruited participants.

CONCLUSION

Our classification could serve as a checklist to assist investigators in the planning of RCTs. Most reasons for recruitment failure seem preventable with a pilot study that applies the planned informed consent procedure.