E-recruitment for clinical trials in physiotherapy : a rising method for a modern world ? E-recruitment for clinical trials in physiotherapy : a rising method for a modern world ? Justine Benoit-Piau Chantale Dumoulin Sophie Bergeron Marie-Hélène Mayrand Samir Khalifé Guy Waddell Marie-Soleil Carroll Mélanie Morin Université de Sherbrooke Université de Montréal McGill University Contact : justine.benoit-piau@usherbrooke.ca

Efficient recruitment is essential when conducting randomized clinical trials. Difficulties in recruitment can have an important impact on the duration of the study, its costs and more critically, can be related to trial failure.1 Researchers are becoming increasingly interested in electronic recruitment strategies such as social media. However, the evidence is lacking regarding the comparison between the different recruitment strategies in terms of their efficiency, retention rate, participants characteristics and costs INTRODUCTION To compare three recruitment methods (conventional methods, health professional referrals and e-recruitment) for the number of patients enrolled, the baseline characteristics, the retention and efficiency rate as well as the average cost per screened and enrolled participants recruited. AIM

METHODS Design and participants Secondary analysis from a bi-centric randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of physiotherapy and topical lidocaine to reduce pain intensity during intercourse in women with provoked vestibulodynia. Recruitment methods Conventional methods (newspaper ads, posters, leaflets in public areas) Health professional referrals (physicians, gynecologists, psychologists and physiotherapists who received email reminders, newsletters and conferences) E-recruitment (Facebook ads and Web pages) Variables Number of women interested in participating compared to number of women enrolled Efficiency rate (% screened/enrolled) Retention rate at 6 month follow-up Participant characteristics Average cost per enrolled woman METHODS

RESULTS 521 women screened 212 women included Conventional methods resulted in higher numbers of screened and enrolled participants, followed by e-recruitment and health professional referrals (p=0.012) Efficiency rate of both health professional referrals and e-recruitment was greater than the conventional methods (p<0.05) 521 women screened p = 0.012 E-recruitment 122 (23%) Professionals 67 (13%) Conventional 332 (64%) 212 women included E-recruitment 60 (28%) 49% Professionals 33 (16%) 49% Conventional 119 (56%) 36% Efficiency p < 0.05 195 women 6 months follow-up E-recruitment Abandons 5 (3%) 91% Professionals Abandons (1%) 91% Conventional Abandons 9 (5%) 92% Retention p = 0.798 118$/woman Participant characteristics (p≥0.189) and retention rate (p=0.798) were not influenced by recruitment methods Health professional referrals were the cheapest method and e-recruitment was the most expensive Figure 1 – Budget Conventional methods E-recruitment Professional references RESULTS 7 071$ 11 026$ 1 964$ 60$/woman 93$/woman

DISCUSSION CONCLUSION REFERENCES Participants were mainly recruited using conventional methods.2 Recruitment methods did not influenced characteristics, contrary to results in other studies. 3 Retention rates were similar with all recruitment methods. It should be underlined that the disparity in costs may increase in the upcoming years given the constant cost augmentation for Facebook advertisement. Advantages and limitations related to each method should be considered when planning a RCT. Multiplication of recruitment methods appears the most beneficial in promoting clinical trial recruitment. As the recruitment methods influenced neither retention rate nor patient baseline characteristics, the use of e-recruitment is a useful recruitment strategies in a pelvic pain trial but its higher cost should be taken into account. DISCUSSION CONCLUSION REFERENCES Anderson, D. A Guide To Patient Recruitment. 2001. Bachour et al. Recruitment methods in a clinical trial of provoked vulvodynia: predictors of enrollment. 2017 Frawley et al. E-recruitment: the Future for Clinical Trials in a Digital World?. 2011