Methodological Insights on Recruitment and Retention From a Remote Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effectiveness of an Alcohol Reduction App: Descriptive Analysis Study.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with no in-person contact (ie, remote) between researchers and participants offer savings in terms of cost and time but present unique challenges.

Objective: The goal of this study is to examine the differences between different forms of remote recruitment (eg, National Health Service [NHS] website, social media, and radio advertising) in the proportion of participants recruited, demographic diversity, follow-up rates, and cost. We also examine the cost per participant of sequential methods of follow-up (emails, phone calls, postal surveys, and postcards). Finally, our experience with broader issues around study advertising and participant deception is discussed.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of 5602 increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score ≥8), taking part in a 2-arm, parallel group, remote RCT with a 1:1 allocation, comparing the intervention (Drink Less app) with usual digital care (NHS alcohol advice web page). Participants were recruited between July 2020 and March 2022 and compensated with gift vouchers of up to £36 (a currency exchange rate of £1=US $1.26988 is applicable) for completing follow-up surveys, with 4 stages of follow-up: email reminders, phone calls, postal survey, and postcard.

Results: The three main recruitment methods were advertisements on (1) social media (2483/5602, 44.32%), (2) the NHS website (1961/5602, 35.01%), and (3) radio and newspapers (745/5602, 13.3%), with the remaining methods of recruitment accounting 7.37% (413/5602) of the sample. The overall recruitment cost per participant varied from £0 to £11.01. Costs were greater when recruiting participants who were men (£0-£28.85), from an ethnic minority group (£0-£303.81), and more disadvantaged (£0-£49.12). Targeted approaches were useful for recruiting more men but less useful in achieving diversity in ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Follow-up at 6 months was 79.58% (4458/5602). Of those who responded, 92.4% (4119/4458) responded by email. Each additional stage of follow-up resulted in an additional 2-3 percentage points of the overall sample being followed up, although phone calls, postal surveys, and postcards were more resource intensive than email reminders.

Conclusions: For remote RCTs, researchers could benefit from using a range of recruitment methods and cost-targeted approaches to achieve demographic diversity. Automated emails with substantial financial incentives for prompt completion can achieve good follow-up rates, and sequential, offline follow-up options, such as phone calls and postal surveys, can further increase follow-up rates but are comparatively expensive. We also make broader recommendations focused on striking the right balance when designing remote RCTs. Careful planning, ongoing maintenance, and dynamic decision-making are required throughout a trial to balance the competing demands of participation among those eligible, deceptive participation among those who are not eligible, and ensuring no postrandomization bias is introduced by data-checking protocols.