SCIMITAR+ Trial: A randomised study within a trial (SWAT) of a contingent financial reward to improve trial follow-up
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
StandardStandard
Yn: F1000Research, 20.11.2019.
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - SCIMITAR+ Trial: A randomised study within a trial (SWAT) of a contingent financial reward to improve trial follow-up
AU - Arundel, Catherine Ellen
AU - Elizabeth, Coleman
AU - Fairhurst, Caroline Marie
AU - Peckham, Emily Jane
AU - Bailey, Della
AU - Gilbody, Simon
PY - 2019/11/20
Y1 - 2019/11/20
N2 - ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsA two arm ‘Study within a Trial’ (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion. Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate.ResultsA total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm. The difference (3.1%) was not statistically significant (p=0.36; OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55).ConclusionContingent financial incentives did not statistically significantly increase rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials. Key WordsSWAT, retention; randomized controlled trial
AB - ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsA two arm ‘Study within a Trial’ (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion. Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate.ResultsA total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm. The difference (3.1%) was not statistically significant (p=0.36; OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55).ConclusionContingent financial incentives did not statistically significantly increase rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials. Key WordsSWAT, retention; randomized controlled trial
U2 - 10.12688/f1000research.21059.1
DO - 10.12688/f1000research.21059.1
M3 - Article
JO - F1000Research
JF - F1000Research
SN - 2046-1402
ER -