Benchmarking Patient Recruitment and Retention Practices

Abstract

Patient recruitment and retention continue to present challenges in conducting clinical trials. The objectives of the study were to benchmark patient recruitment and retention practices across recent global clinical trials from a working group of biopharmaceutical companies and to re-visit the results from an earlier study published 7 years ago. The data collection focused on patient and site enrollment metrics and recruitment and retention tactics used for studies. Analyses were conducted comparing the results from 2012 and 2019. The results indicated that more studies met or exceeded planned enrollment than the previous research and global differences were observed in the present study for site activation rates and target to actual enrollment rates. Since an updated set of recruitment and retention tactics were evaluated in the present study, no comparisons were made to previous data. Researchers suggest further study that would examine usage and effectiveness of specific recruitment and retention tactics across global studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1.

References

  1. 1.

    Lai G, Gary T, Tilburt J, et al. Effectiveness of strategies to recruit underrepresented populations into cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2006;3(2):133–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lamberti MJ, Mathias A, Myles JE, et al. Evaluating the impact of patient recruitment and retention practices. Therap Innov Regul Sci. 2012;46(5):573–80.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sung N, Crowley W, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289:1278–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkelthy M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Otobo E, Park S, Rogers J, et al. Reinventing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trial recruitment using novel digital medicine tools. Gastroenterology. 2013;156(3):S28. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Weng C, Bigger JT, Busacca L. Comparing the effectiveness of a clinical registry and a clinical data warehouse for supporting clinical trial recruitment: a case study. AMIA Ann Symp Proc Arch. 2010;2010:867–81.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Stergiopoulos S, Michaels D, Lopez Kunz B, et al. Measuring the impact of patient engagement and patient centricity in clinical research and development. Therap Innov Regul Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2168479018817517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Housman LT. “I’m Home(screen)”: Social media in health care has arrived. Clin Ther. 2017;39(11):2189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.10.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nash E, Gilroy D, Srikusalanukul W, et al. Facebook advertising for participant recruitment into a blood pressure clinical trial. J Hypertens. 2017;35(12):2527–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000001477.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Spoelstra S, Sikorskii A, Given C. Adult cancer patient recruitment and enrollment into cell phone text message trials. Telemed J E-Health. 2016;22(10):836–42. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2015.0263.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Krischer J, Cronholm P. Burroughs C Experience with direct-to-patient recruitment for enrollment into a clinical trial in a rare disease: a web-based study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(2):e50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Getz K, Campo R. New benchmarks characterizing growth in protocol design complexity. Therap Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52(1):22–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2168479017713039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Getz K, Sethuraman V, Rine J, et al. Assessing patient participation burden based on protocol design characteristics. Therap Innov Regul Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2168479019867284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ali S, Egunsola O, Babar Z, et al. Clinical trials in Asia: a World Health Organization database study. Perspect Clin Res. 2019;10(3):121–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dece-Gomez HL, Pinto JA, Casteneda C, et al. Current barriers for developing clinical research in Latin America: a cross-sectional survey of medical oncologists. Clin Res Trials. 2015;1(2):22–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding sources.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Jo Lamberti PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lamberti, M.J., Smith, Z., Henry, R. et al. Benchmarking Patient Recruitment and Retention Practices. Ther Innov Regul Sci (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-020-00186-4

Download citation