J Adv Prosthodont.  2013 May;5(2):204-208. 10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.204.

Recruitment and enrollment in a randomized clinical trial of mandibular two-implant overdenture

• Lee JY
• Kim MS
• Kim HY
• Shin SW

• KMID: 2284762
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.204

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a promotion campaign for subject recruitment and selection, and reasons of withdrawal from a prospective clinical trial of mandibular two-implant supported overdenture.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The subjects of this study were participants in a randomized controlled clinical trial for investigating prognosis of implants and overdentures with attachments. Recruited subjects were classified by gender, age, and participation motives. Withdrawal rate of the participants before and after enrollment were evaluated.
RESULTS
177 patients were recruited and 51 patients were enrolled for the trial. Among them, 40 participants eventually took part in the trial. 116 subjects (65.5%) were recruited by advertisement and 61 (34.5%) were referred by patients of the hospital or local clinics. Regarding recruitment effectiveness, newspaper recruited the largest number of participants. With respect to referral patients, the proportion of our hospital patients was higher (37/61). Subjects in their 70s comprised the largest proportion (22/51). The male to female ratio was similar (25:26). Final withdrawal rate of all subjects were 74.0%. Among the reasons for withdrawal from enrollment (n=126) presence of remaining teeth and lack of motivation were the most common reasons.
CONCLUSION
To facilitate recruitment of clinical trial subjects and improve enrollment rate, it is important to obtain a sufficient number of researchers, perform promotion activity with diverse strategies, cooperate with local dentists, increase the research funding, and alleviate subjects' fear against clinical trials by thorough consultation.

Keyword

Mandibular implant overdenture; Clinical trial; Recruitment; Enrollment

MeSH Terms

Dentists
Denture, Overlay
Female
Financial Management
Humans
Male
Motivation
Periodicals
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Referral and Consultation
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The number of participants according to recruitment approaches (n=177).

• 

  Fig. 2 Age distribution of participants (n=51).

• 

  Fig. 3 Gender distribution of participants (n=51).

• 

  Fig. 4 Reasons for exclusion from this study (n=177).

Reference

1. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Screening and enrolling subjects in a randomized clinical trial involving implant dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21:210–214.

2. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Choosing or refusing oral implants: a prospective study of edentulous volunteers for a clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18:483–488.

3. Osterberg T, Carlsson GE. Dental state, prosthodontic treatment and chewing ability - a study of five cohorts of 70-year-old subjects. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34:553–559.

4. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Heydecke G, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais JA, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002; 19:3–4.

5. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207:185–186.

6. Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures-a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2012; 40:22–34.

7. Galbreath AD, Smith B, Wood P, Forkner E, Peters JI. Cumulative recruitment experience in two large single-center randomized, controlled clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008; 29:335–342.

8. UyBico SJ, Pavel S, Gross CP. Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions. J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22:852–863.

9. McHenry JC, Insel KC, Einstein GO, Vidrine AN, Koerner KM, Morrow DG. Recruitment of Older Adults: Success May Be in the Details. Gerontologist. 2012; 08. 16.

10. Nasser N, Grady D, Balke CW. Commentary: Improving participant recruitment in clinical and translational research. Acad Med. 2011; 86:1334–1335.

11. Caldwell PH, Hamilton S, Tan A, Craig JC. Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010; 7:e1000368.

12. Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (1):MR000013.

13. Bader JD, Robinson DS, Gilbert GH, Ritter AV, Makhija SK, Funkhouser KA, Amaechi BT, Shugars DA, Laws R. X-ACT Collaborative Research Group. Four "lessons learned" while implementing a multi-site caries prevention trial. J Public Health Dent. 2010; 70:171–175.