Scholarlink

Background <p>Recruiting patients into randomised controlled trials in general practice is challenging and carries a substantial risk of bias. The&#xa0;ENERGISED trial evaluated a digitally supported behavioural intervention to increase physical activity in patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes recruited through general practice. To minimise bias, the trial employed a systematic recruitment strategy where general practitioners assessed patient eligibility from random stratified samples of their registers and sought consent from those deemed eligible. This study aimed to analyse the ENERGISED trial’s recruitment process and identify sources of potential bias arising from general practitioners' eligibility assessments (selection bias) and patient consent (self-selection bias).</p> Methods <p>Patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes were randomly sampled from the registers of 28 Czech general practices using sex- and diagnosis-stratified lists. Eligibility was systematically assessed during routine practice visits, with general practitioners documenting reasons for ineligibility. All eligible patients were invited to participate, and reasons for non-consent were recorded. Logistic mixed-effects models were used to examine the influence of patient characteristics (age, sex, diagnosis) and general practitioner characteristics on eligibility and consent.</p> Results <p>Of 1,376 sampled patients, 1,138 (83%) were assessed, 792 (70% of assessed) were eligible, 348 (44% of eligible) consented and 343 were randomised. Older age was associated with lower odds of eligibility (OR 0.955, 95% CI 0.942–0.968; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and lower odds of consent among eligible patients (OR 0.972, 95% CI 0.958–0.986; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Ineligibility was most often due to digital barriers (227 cases, 44.6% of ineligible). Practices with older registered populations showed stronger age-related bias. Female practitioners and practices with more diabetes/prediabetes patients achieved significantly higher eligibility rates.</p> Conclusions <p>Systematic recruitment through general practice can reduce selection and self-selection bias, yet digital exclusion, particularly in older adults, persists. Future trials must proactively address digital literacy and age-related barriers to ensure representative participation in digital health research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Recruiting patients into a digital behavioural intervention in general practice: insights from the ENERGISED trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月3日

查看全文
  • Norbert Kral,
  • Tomas Vetrovsky,
  • Marketa Pfeiferova,
  • Bohumil Seifert,
  • Vaclav Capek,
  • Katerina Jurkova,
  • Michal Steffl,
  • Richard Cimler,
  • Jitka Kuhnova,
  • Michael Ussher,
  • Charlotte Wahlich,
  • Katerina Malisova,
  • Jana Pelclova,
  • Jan Dygryn,
  • Steriani Elavsky,
  • Iris Maes,
  • Delfien Van Dyck,
  • Alex Rowlands,
  • Tom Yates,
  • Petr Dvorak,
  • Tess Harris

摘要

Background

Recruiting patients into randomised controlled trials in general practice is challenging and carries a substantial risk of bias. The ENERGISED trial evaluated a digitally supported behavioural intervention to increase physical activity in patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes recruited through general practice. To minimise bias, the trial employed a systematic recruitment strategy where general practitioners assessed patient eligibility from random stratified samples of their registers and sought consent from those deemed eligible. This study aimed to analyse the ENERGISED trial’s recruitment process and identify sources of potential bias arising from general practitioners' eligibility assessments (selection bias) and patient consent (self-selection bias).

Methods

Patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes were randomly sampled from the registers of 28 Czech general practices using sex- and diagnosis-stratified lists. Eligibility was systematically assessed during routine practice visits, with general practitioners documenting reasons for ineligibility. All eligible patients were invited to participate, and reasons for non-consent were recorded. Logistic mixed-effects models were used to examine the influence of patient characteristics (age, sex, diagnosis) and general practitioner characteristics on eligibility and consent.

Results

Of 1,376 sampled patients, 1,138 (83%) were assessed, 792 (70% of assessed) were eligible, 348 (44% of eligible) consented and 343 were randomised. Older age was associated with lower odds of eligibility (OR 0.955, 95% CI 0.942–0.968; p < 0.001) and lower odds of consent among eligible patients (OR 0.972, 95% CI 0.958–0.986; p < 0.001). Ineligibility was most often due to digital barriers (227 cases, 44.6% of ineligible). Practices with older registered populations showed stronger age-related bias. Female practitioners and practices with more diabetes/prediabetes patients achieved significantly higher eligibility rates.

Conclusions

Systematic recruitment through general practice can reduce selection and self-selection bias, yet digital exclusion, particularly in older adults, persists. Future trials must proactively address digital literacy and age-related barriers to ensure representative participation in digital health research.