Does Paying Subjects to Participate in Research Improve Recruitment
NCT ID: NCT03881969
Last Updated: 2019-03-21
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
1015 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2012-06-30
2013-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Using Nudges to Recruit for Health-Related Research
NCT06857903
Testing Promising Behavioral Economic Interventions to Promote Enrollment Diversity in Cardiovascular Cohort Studies
NCT05827718
Financial Incentives for Care Gaps
NCT03715907
Incentives & Motivation for Behavior Change:
NCT04747327
A Randomized Trial of Recruitment Strategies for Research Participation
NCT02697799
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
There are few data on how payments to patients in the UK would influence the recruitment and demographic structure of patients recruited to clinical research studies.
The single biggest cost of clinical trials in the UK is the cost of recruiting suitable subjects. The Academy of Medical Sciences report on the UK clinical trials environment, "A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research", provided a comprehensive review of the barriers faced in running clinical trials . However, other barriers to recruitment exist after these hurdles have been overcome. Importantly, in our experience, of 100 suitable subjects identified as suitable to be entered into a study only about 14% are actually randomised. Most of the identified suitable subjects do not reply to invitation letters from their doctor and some patients who do reply decline the invitation to participate. Campaigns to engage the public on the importance of research have had modest effects on improving the awareness about trials but no measurable effect on willingness to participate .
An important finding is that those subjects who do participate in clinical trials usually have much lower rates of events than predicted from observational data. This is probably because trials attract subjects who care about their own health and the health of others and these subjects exhibit good 'health behaviour'. Those subjects with less good health behaviour and who constitute the subjects who suffer more consequences from their disorders in the real world, do not participate in trials as readily. The result is that trial participants tend to be middle class, middle aged, low risk subjects. These subjects are unrepresentative of the population at large or the population who will eventually get most of the prescribing (lower class, elderly and high risk). In addition, including only low risk subjects may result in studies being abandoned because the low event rates make achieving a statistically reliable result futile.
How can we address this issue within an ethical framework?
The findings from one trial currently running casts some light on this issue. The Streamlined Celecoxib versus standard therapy Outcome Trial (SCOT) is currently running in both the UK and Denmark. Trial recruitment in Denmark is significantly better than in the Scotland. We think that this is because in Denmark, all patients pay the full price for their medications and trial participation means that they get their medication free. In Scotland where recruitment is lower, all prescriptions are free anyway so there is no such incentive. Thus there appears to be a financial incentive for Danish patients to participate.
The present proposal seeks to study the effect of payments on recruitment.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Financial incentive offered
Patient offered £100 incentive payment in initial trial invitation letter.
Financial Payment of £100
No financial payment
No incentive. Payment not offered
Patient sent standard trial invitation letter with no offer of incentive payment.
Financial Payment of £100
No financial payment
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Financial Payment of £100
No financial payment
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Dundee
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2012 CV01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.