Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials
J M Rendell1, R D Merritt, J R Geddes
1University of Oxford, Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, OX3 7JX. jennifer.rendell@psych.ox.ac.uk
Background:
Patients and clinicians need reliable, up-to-date information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the costs and benefits of treatments. Recruitment difficulties arise when clinicians do not invite patients to participate in trials.
Objectives:
Primary: to assess the evidence for the effect of disincentives and incentives on the extent to which clinicians invite eligible patients to participate in RCTs of healthcare interventions. Secondary: to assess the evidence in relation to stated willingness to invite participation.
Search Strategy:
1. The Cochrane Methodology Register and Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews were searched in May 2006 and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Research Register and ClinicalTrialsGov in April 2005.2. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED were searched in April 2005.3. Reference lists of included studies were checked.
Selection Criteria:
Studies exploring the effect of (dis)incentives on clinicians' views and recruitment-related activity.
Data Collection And Analysis:
The information about included studies was insufficient for a full assessment of quality. Data on (dis)incentives were extracted and association with recruitment tested.
Main Results:
No RCTs of interventions were identified. Eleven observational studies were included - two medical records reviews, one matched pair study, one clinician interview study, two studies documenting clinicians' decisions and five postal surveys. Three measures of recruitment were used, invitation to participate, entry into RCT and reported entry to RCT. Five studies explored the effect of patient characteristics. The effect of age and prognosis varied between trials. Six studies considered the association between clinicians' views and recruitment. Clinicians who agreed to participate because they were acquainted with the researchers were less likely to participate than those otherwise motivated (1 study, 2-sided p = 0.04 Fisher's exact test) and (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.2 to 0.9, 1 study). Clinicians who had recruited were more likely to report some difficulties including "trials involve extra work" (OR 92.94, 95% CI 4.54 - 1902.11; p = 0.01, 1 study) and "inviting patients to participate is embarrassing" (chi-square 15.55, df = 1, p < 0.0001, 1 study). The effect of the need to discuss clinical uncertainty was unclear but concern that the doctor-patient relationship would be adversely affected by participation was a deterrent (chi-square = 7.25, df = 1, p = 0.007, 1 study).
Authors' Conclusions:
The impact of factors varied across studies. Researchers need to be aware that aspects of the design and conduct of trials can affect clinicians' willingness to invite patients to participate. Further research is needed.
Insights
Clinician incentives and disincentives impact patient recruitment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Understanding these factors is crucial for improving trial participation and advancing healthcare research.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Trials Methodology
- Health Services Research
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- Clinicians and patients require reliable data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding treatment costs and benefits.
- Recruitment challenges in RCTs often stem from clinicians not inviting eligible patients to participate.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate evidence on how disincentives and incentives influence clinicians' invitation of eligible patients to participate in healthcare intervention RCTs.
- To assess evidence related to clinicians' stated willingness to invite patients to trials.
Main Methods:
- Searched multiple databases including Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and AMED.
- Included eleven observational studies exploring the effects of (dis)incentives on clinicians' views and recruitment activities.
- Extracted data on (dis)incentives and tested associations with recruitment, noting limitations in quality assessment.
Main Results:
- No RCTs of interventions were identified; eleven observational studies were included.
- Clinicians acquainted with researchers were less likely to participate (OR 0.4).
- Recruitment difficulties cited by clinicians included extra work (OR 92.94) and embarrassment (p < 0.0001), with concerns about the doctor-patient relationship acting as a deterrent (p = 0.007).
Conclusions:
- The influence of various factors on clinician willingness to invite patients to RCTs varies.
- Trial design and conduct aspects can significantly affect clinicians' willingness to recruit.
- Further research is necessary to fully understand and address these recruitment barriers.
Related Concept Videos
Blinding
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Blind Procedures
