Table 5.

Strength of factors’ perceived influence on positive and negative patient accrual experiences

	Median score and percent citing factor
	Study Chairs		Lead Statisticians
	Percent citing factor	Median score	Percent citing factor	Median score
Potential Factors with Positive Accrual Influence
Recruitment resources devoted to this trial	90%	4	88%	3
Clinical relevance of study question	100%	1	100%	2
Control arm selection	100%	3	99%	3
No other trials competing for similar patient population	98%	2	95%	3
Participation of other cooperative groups	61%	3	46%	2
Study protocol designed to parallel normal practice	98%	2	96%	4
Supplemental funding from a non-federal source	56%	4	32%	5
New data emerged enhancing the value of this trial's research question	71%	4	73%	5
Potential Factors with Negative Accrual Influence
Restrictive entry criteria	91%	4	92%	4
Inadequate formal planning of patient recruitment	94%	5	87%	4
Inadequate patient recruitment resources, incl. personnel	96%	4	89%	4
Diminished clinical relevance of study question by time of trial opening	96%	4	90%	5
Control arm selection	96%	5	92%	5
Unrealistic patient accrual estimates	96%	4	97%	3
Competition from another trial entering similar patient population	94%	4	90%	5
Participation of other cooperative groups	81%	3	77%	4
Study protocol deviated too much from normal practice	96%	5	93%	4
Lack of supplemental funding	85%	5	77%	5
New data emerged diminishing the value of this trial's research question	87%	5	87%	5
Financial costs of participation too high for patients	94%	5	81%	5
Financial costs of participation too high for institutions/clinicians	96%	5	83%	5
Inadequate incentive for institutions/clinicians to enroll patients	98%	4	83%	4

Likert scale from 1-5 used to rate strength of influence

1=Strong influence; 3=Some influence; 5=No influence