Table 5.
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