This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Farrin, A. Articles by Underwood, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Farrin, A. Articles by Underwood, M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Differential recruitment in a cluster randomized trial in primary care: the experience of the UK Back pain, Exercise, Active management and Manipulation (UK BEAM) feasibility study

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK; Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, 17 Springfield Mount, Leeds, LS2 9NG, UK. a.j.farrin{at}leeds.ac.uk

Ian Russell

Institute for Medical and Social Care Research, University of Wales Bangor, Gwynedd, UK

David Torgerson

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK

Martin Underwood

Centre for General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Community Health Sciences, Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Background Cluster randomized trials, which randomize groups of patients rather than individuals, are commonly used to evaluate healthcare interventions such as training programmes targeted at health professionals. This article reports the dangers of randomizing entire primary care practices when participants cannot be identified before randomization, as shown by a UK national trial.

Method The UK BEAM trial, a national cluster randomized 322 factorial trial, was designed to evaluate three treatments for back pain in primary care: "active management"; randomized by practice; and spinal manipulation and exercise classes, both randomized by individual.

Results Two hundred and thirty-one participants were recruited in the feasibility study, 165 (141% of expected recruitment) from active (management) practices but only 66 (54% of expected recruitment) from traditional (management) practices. The participants in active practices were significantly different from those in traditional practices, notably in suffering from milder back pain.

Conclusions The feasibility study highlighted the dangers of randomizing clusters when individuals cannot be identified beforehand. Different numbers and types of participants were recruited in the two types of cluster. This differential recruitment led us to change the main trial design by abandoning practice level randomization. Instead all practices were trained in active management to maximize recruitment. Ideally cluster randomized trials should identify patients beforehand, to minimize the chance of selection bias. If this is not possible, patient recruitment should be independent in both intervention and control clusters. Pilot studies are especially important for cluster randomized trials, to identify unforeseen problems.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Eldridge, D. Ashby, C. Bennett, M. Wakelin, and G. Feder Internal and external validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials BMJ, April 19, 2008; 336(7649): 876 - 880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]