Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis
Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, ot...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Vol. 10; p. MR000045 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
England
07.10.2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.
To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.
We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.
We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.
Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.
We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.
This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.BACKGROUNDRandomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.OBJECTIVESTo explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.SELECTION CRITERIAWe included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISFive review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.MAIN RESULTSWe included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThis qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste. Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste. |
| Author | Conway, Aislinn Noyes, Jane Biesty, Linda M Houghton, Catherine Meskell, Pauline Devane, Declan Dowling, Maura Sutcliffe, Katy Nicholas, Jane R Treweek, Shaun Hunter, Andrew Gardner, Heidi |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Catherine surname: Houghton fullname: Houghton, Catherine organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland – sequence: 2 givenname: Maura surname: Dowling fullname: Dowling, Maura organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland – sequence: 3 givenname: Pauline surname: Meskell fullname: Meskell, Pauline organization: Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland – sequence: 4 givenname: Andrew surname: Hunter fullname: Hunter, Andrew organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland – sequence: 5 givenname: Heidi surname: Gardner fullname: Gardner, Heidi organization: Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK – sequence: 6 givenname: Aislinn surname: Conway fullname: Conway, Aislinn organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland – sequence: 7 givenname: Shaun surname: Treweek fullname: Treweek, Shaun organization: Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK – sequence: 8 givenname: Katy surname: Sutcliffe fullname: Sutcliffe, Katy organization: Department of Social Science, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK – sequence: 9 givenname: Jane surname: Noyes fullname: Noyes, Jane organization: Centre for Health-Related Research, Fron Heulog, Bangor University, Bangor, UK – sequence: 10 givenname: Declan surname: Devane fullname: Devane, Declan organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland – sequence: 11 givenname: Jane R surname: Nicholas fullname: Nicholas, Jane R organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland – sequence: 12 givenname: Linda M surname: Biesty fullname: Biesty, Linda M organization: School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33026107$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNUF1LwzAUDTJxH_oXRh596cxnm_omw6kwEUTBt5ImdzTSpluSDvbvLTjB-3LP4Z5zONw5mvjeA0JLSlaUEHZHRS6pkmr1-k7GEXK1H2p2gWbjocxEyb8m__AUzWP8JoSXlKorNOWcsJySYoaajTapDxGnRifsuv1Ice9xABMGlzrwCaceB-1t37kIFqfgdBux87gB3aYGGx3gHmt8GHTrkk7uCBiOzoI3gOPJpwaii9focjf64Oa8F-hz8_ixfs62b08v64dtZkTBWbYjUEvYSSuorim1vBTcKFsUpiBGSCakFLkphOLATc5AC1rnvCg1qWulwbIFuv3N3Yf-MEBM1VjbQNtqD_0QKyZESRVRjIzS5Vk61B3Yah9cp8Op-vsO-wGdVGvf |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2023_33642 crossref_primary_10_1080_10810730_2020_1864520 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2023_1123107 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2024_1385426 crossref_primary_10_2196_58136 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_08670_0 crossref_primary_10_1111_trf_17621 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05121_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05853_x crossref_primary_10_3989_scimar_05299_053 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_023_15899_y crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_18466 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_08703_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06865_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_08217_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_025_02464_x crossref_primary_10_1111_obr_13542 crossref_primary_10_1002_eahr_500210 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_023_01838_3 crossref_primary_10_2196_42586 crossref_primary_10_2147_PPA_S452328 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10728_023_00461_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05403_5 crossref_primary_10_1161_JAHA_123_030903 crossref_primary_10_2196_71817 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12966_022_01275_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06306_9 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05420_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_024_20345_8 crossref_primary_10_1111_jocn_16990 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07258_4 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD014796_pub2 crossref_primary_10_1080_02739615_2023_2189116 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD013648_pub2 crossref_primary_10_1177_13623613231202432 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_021_00672_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_024_12464_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06187_y crossref_primary_10_4102_phcfm_v16i1_4701 crossref_primary_10_2147_JMDH_S355055 crossref_primary_10_2147_CMAR_S447407 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00115_023_01572_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_07937_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_022_01611_y |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.MR000045.pub2 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 33026107 |
| Genre | Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Chief Scientist Office grantid: HSRU1 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-f0eb5ef5d41ab11d3943c8d77c70c45245546c7483e3c62ea41b6379a0bb8aed2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 127 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000583109400001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Wed Oct 01 17:01:22 EDT 2025 Sat May 31 02:11:58 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Language | English |
| License | Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4732-f0eb5ef5d41ab11d3943c8d77c70c45245546c7483e3c62ea41b6379a0bb8aed2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000045.pub2/pdf/full |
| PMID | 33026107 |
| PQID | 2449180820 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2449180820 pubmed_primary_33026107 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2020-10-07 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2020-10-07 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2020 text: 2020-10-07 day: 07 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2020 |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.629492 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | MR000045 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Communication Decision Making Financial Support Humans Patient Education as Topic - methods Patient Selection Qualitative Research Random Allocation Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Research Subjects - psychology Risk Assessment Sample Size Treatment Refusal - psychology |
| Title | Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33026107 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2449180820 |
| Volume | 10 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000583109400001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8QwEA7qinjx_VhfRPBabV5N6kVEXLzssgeF3kqapGwv7brtCv578-jqSRC8hFwCyWQy3yQzkw-AG4K1YUYnkULCUZjZnmBSRxYaFVUlNyWTnmyCTyYiy9Jp_-DW9mmVK5voDbVulHsjv7MwlCLhAOth_h451igXXe0pNNbBgFhXxmk1z76jCMQeZBGqi9w0SLaqEI7xHXIc4IKJ27FnXKPMLR__7mZ6uBnt_neie2CndzThY9CMfbBm6gOwNe5D6YdgNgpMO7CbyQ6GYknY1NBawMWy8rnnsGughTLdWF0wGnqCjxZWNQzFk9Bljd1DCUNhpv9BHJqepRS2n7X1LduqPQJvo-fXp5eop12IFOUER2VsCmb3SFMkC4Q0SSlRQnOueKwow9QltilOBTFEJdhIioqE8FTGRSGk0fgYbNRNbU4BtGM1k7hgWhhqGE4px1olGknKC2XkEFyvZJjbpbhYhaxNs2zzHykOwUnYiHwe_t_ICXEXx5if_WH0OdjG7obsQv78AgxKKyhzCTbVR1e1iyuvL7adTMdfVubL1w |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Factors+that+impact+on+recruitment+to+randomised+trials+in+health+care%3A+a+qualitative+evidence+synthesis&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Houghton%2C+Catherine&rft.au=Dowling%2C+Maura&rft.au=Meskell%2C+Pauline&rft.au=Hunter%2C+Andrew&rft.date=2020-10-07&rft.issn=1469-493X&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=10&rft.spage=MR000045&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000045.pub2&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |