1. 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 :

2. 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

3. 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 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

4. 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

5. 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
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