Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewfagfællebedømt

Standard

Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials : Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. / Brogger-Mikkelsen, Mette; Ali, Zarqa; Zibert, John R.; Andersen, Anders Daniel; Thomsen, Simon Francis.

I: Journal of Medical Internet Research, Bind 22, Nr. 11, 22179, 2020.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Brogger-Mikkelsen, M, Ali, Z, Zibert, JR, Andersen, AD & Thomsen, SF 2020, 'Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis', Journal of Medical Internet Research, bind 22, nr. 11, 22179. https://doi.org/10.2196/22179

APA

Brogger-Mikkelsen, M., Ali, Z., Zibert, J. R., Andersen, A. D., & Thomsen, S. F. (2020). Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(11), [22179]. https://doi.org/10.2196/22179

Vancouver

Brogger-Mikkelsen M, Ali Z, Zibert JR, Andersen AD, Thomsen SF. Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(11). 22179. https://doi.org/10.2196/22179

Author

Brogger-Mikkelsen, Mette ; Ali, Zarqa ; Zibert, John R. ; Andersen, Anders Daniel ; Thomsen, Simon Francis. / Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials : Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. I: Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020 ; Bind 22, Nr. 11.

Bibtex

@article{1b86019b595843bdb058550e2a1e8f66,
title = "Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "Background: Recruitment for clinical trials continues to be a challenge, as patient recruitment is the single biggest cause of trial delays. Around 80% of trials fail to meet the initial enrollment target and timeline, and these delays can result in lost revenue of as much as US $8 million per day for drug developing companies.Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of online recruitment of participants for clinical trials compared with traditional in-clinic/offline recruitment methods.Methods: Data on recruitment rates (the average number of patients enrolled in the study per month and per day of active recruitment) and conversion rates (the percentage of participants screened who proceed to enroll into the clinical trial), as well as study characteristics and patient demographics were collected from the included studies. Differences in online and offline recruitment rates and conversion rates were examined using random effects models. Further, a nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test was used for additional analysis on the cost-effectiveness of online patient recruitment. All data analyses were conducted in R language, and PResults: In total, 3861 articles were screened for inclusion. Of these, 61 studies were included in the review, and 23 of these were further included in the meta-analysis. We found online recruitment to be significantly more effective with respect to the recruitment rate for active days of recruitment, where 100% (7/7) of the studies included had a better online recruitment rate compared with offline recruitment (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4.17, P=.04). When examining the entire recruitment period in months we found that 52% (12/23) of the studies had a better online recruitment rate compared with the offline recruitment rate (IRR 1.11, P=.71). For cost-effectiveness, we found that online recruitment had a significantly lower cost per enrollee compared with offline recruitment (US $72 vs US $199, P=.04). Finally, we found that 69% (9/13) of studies had significantly better offline conversion rates compared with online conversion rates (risk ratio 0.8, P=.02).Conclusions: Targeting potential participants using online remedies is an effective approach for patient recruitment for clinical research. Online recruitment was both superior in regard to time efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared with offline recruitment. In contrast, offline recruitment outperformed online recruitment with respect to conversion rate.",
keywords = "online clinical trial, web-based clinical trial, hybrid clinical trial, online recruitment, remote recruitment, recruitment, clinical trial, conversion rate, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL, WEB-BASED ACCEPTANCE, COMMITMENT THERAPY, MENTAL-HEALTH, INTERNET, FACEBOOK, INTERVENTION, SMOKING, YOUNG, SEX",
author = "Mette Brogger-Mikkelsen and Zarqa Ali and Zibert, {John R.} and Andersen, {Anders Daniel} and Thomsen, {Simon Francis}",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.2196/22179",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
journal = "Journal of Medical Internet Research",
issn = "1439-4456",
publisher = "JMIR Publications",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials

T2 - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Brogger-Mikkelsen, Mette

AU - Ali, Zarqa

AU - Zibert, John R.

AU - Andersen, Anders Daniel

AU - Thomsen, Simon Francis

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background: Recruitment for clinical trials continues to be a challenge, as patient recruitment is the single biggest cause of trial delays. Around 80% of trials fail to meet the initial enrollment target and timeline, and these delays can result in lost revenue of as much as US $8 million per day for drug developing companies.Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of online recruitment of participants for clinical trials compared with traditional in-clinic/offline recruitment methods.Methods: Data on recruitment rates (the average number of patients enrolled in the study per month and per day of active recruitment) and conversion rates (the percentage of participants screened who proceed to enroll into the clinical trial), as well as study characteristics and patient demographics were collected from the included studies. Differences in online and offline recruitment rates and conversion rates were examined using random effects models. Further, a nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test was used for additional analysis on the cost-effectiveness of online patient recruitment. All data analyses were conducted in R language, and PResults: In total, 3861 articles were screened for inclusion. Of these, 61 studies were included in the review, and 23 of these were further included in the meta-analysis. We found online recruitment to be significantly more effective with respect to the recruitment rate for active days of recruitment, where 100% (7/7) of the studies included had a better online recruitment rate compared with offline recruitment (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4.17, P=.04). When examining the entire recruitment period in months we found that 52% (12/23) of the studies had a better online recruitment rate compared with the offline recruitment rate (IRR 1.11, P=.71). For cost-effectiveness, we found that online recruitment had a significantly lower cost per enrollee compared with offline recruitment (US $72 vs US $199, P=.04). Finally, we found that 69% (9/13) of studies had significantly better offline conversion rates compared with online conversion rates (risk ratio 0.8, P=.02).Conclusions: Targeting potential participants using online remedies is an effective approach for patient recruitment for clinical research. Online recruitment was both superior in regard to time efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared with offline recruitment. In contrast, offline recruitment outperformed online recruitment with respect to conversion rate.

AB - Background: Recruitment for clinical trials continues to be a challenge, as patient recruitment is the single biggest cause of trial delays. Around 80% of trials fail to meet the initial enrollment target and timeline, and these delays can result in lost revenue of as much as US $8 million per day for drug developing companies.Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of online recruitment of participants for clinical trials compared with traditional in-clinic/offline recruitment methods.Methods: Data on recruitment rates (the average number of patients enrolled in the study per month and per day of active recruitment) and conversion rates (the percentage of participants screened who proceed to enroll into the clinical trial), as well as study characteristics and patient demographics were collected from the included studies. Differences in online and offline recruitment rates and conversion rates were examined using random effects models. Further, a nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test was used for additional analysis on the cost-effectiveness of online patient recruitment. All data analyses were conducted in R language, and PResults: In total, 3861 articles were screened for inclusion. Of these, 61 studies were included in the review, and 23 of these were further included in the meta-analysis. We found online recruitment to be significantly more effective with respect to the recruitment rate for active days of recruitment, where 100% (7/7) of the studies included had a better online recruitment rate compared with offline recruitment (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4.17, P=.04). When examining the entire recruitment period in months we found that 52% (12/23) of the studies had a better online recruitment rate compared with the offline recruitment rate (IRR 1.11, P=.71). For cost-effectiveness, we found that online recruitment had a significantly lower cost per enrollee compared with offline recruitment (US $72 vs US $199, P=.04). Finally, we found that 69% (9/13) of studies had significantly better offline conversion rates compared with online conversion rates (risk ratio 0.8, P=.02).Conclusions: Targeting potential participants using online remedies is an effective approach for patient recruitment for clinical research. Online recruitment was both superior in regard to time efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared with offline recruitment. In contrast, offline recruitment outperformed online recruitment with respect to conversion rate.

KW - online clinical trial

KW - web-based clinical trial

KW - hybrid clinical trial

KW - online recruitment

KW - remote recruitment

KW - recruitment

KW - clinical trial

KW - conversion rate

KW - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL

KW - WEB-BASED ACCEPTANCE

KW - COMMITMENT THERAPY

KW - MENTAL-HEALTH

KW - INTERNET

KW - FACEBOOK

KW - INTERVENTION

KW - SMOKING

KW - YOUNG

KW - SEX

U2 - 10.2196/22179

DO - 10.2196/22179

M3 - Review

C2 - 33146627

VL - 22

JO - Journal of Medical Internet Research

JF - Journal of Medical Internet Research

SN - 1439-4456

IS - 11

M1 - 22179

ER -

ID: 257025464