Pragmatic trials are needed to establish evidence-based obesity treatment in primary care settings, particularly in community health centers (CHCs) that serve populations at heightened risk of obesity. Recruiting a representative trial sample is a critical first step to informing care for diverse communities. We described recruitment strategies utilized in a pragmatic obesity trial and assessed the sociodemographic characteristics and odds of enrollment by recruitment strategy.

We analyzed data from Balance, a pragmatic trial implemented within a network of CHCs. We recruited participants via health center-based and electronic health record (EHR)-informed mail recruitment. We analyzed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the return rate of patient authorization forms (required for participation) from EHR-informed mail recruitment. We also compared sociodemographic characteristics and randomization odds by recruitment strategy after returning authorization forms.

Of the individuals recruited through EHR-informed mail recruitment, females were more likely than males to return authorization forms; however, there were no differences in rates of return by preferred language (English/Spanish) or age. Females; underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; Spanish speakers; younger adults; and those with lower education levels were recruited more successfully in the health center. In contrast, their counterparts were more responsive to mail recruitment. Once authorization forms were returned, the odds of being randomized did not significantly differ by recruitment method.

Health center-based recruitment was essential to meeting recruitment targets in a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial, specifically for Hispanic and Spanish-speaking communities. Future pragmatic trials should consider leveraging in-person recruitment for underrepresented groups in research.

Pharmacological intervention is an important component of patient care. However, drugs are often inappropriately used. It is necessary for countries to implement strategies to improve the rational use of drugs, including independent information for healthcare professionals and the public, which must be supported by well-trained staff. The primary objectives of the EDU.RE.DRUG (Effectiveness of informative and/or educational interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of drugs designed for general practitioners and their patients) study are the retrospective evaluation of rates of appropriate prescribing indicators (APIs) and the assessment of the effectiveness of informative and/or educational interventions addressed to general practitioners (GPs) and their patients, aimed at improving prescribing quality and promoting proper drug use.

This is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, parallel-arm, controlled, pragmatic trial directed to GPs and their patients in two Italian regions (Campania and Lombardy). The study data are retrieved from administrative databases (Demographic, Pharmacy-refill, and Hospitalization databases) containing healthcare information of all beneficiaries of the National Health Service in the Local Health Units (LHUs) involved. According to LHU, the GPs/patients will be assigned to one of the following four intervention arms: (1) intervention on GPs and patients; (2) intervention on GPs; (3) intervention on patients; and (4) no intervention (control). The intervention designed for GPs consists of reports regarding the status of their patients according to the APIs determined at baseline and in two on-line Continuous Medical Education (CME) courses. The intervention designed for patients consists in flyers and posters distributed in GPs ambulatories and community pharmacies, focusing on correct drug use.

A set of indicators (such as potential drug–drug interactions, unnecessary duplicate prescriptions, and inappropriate prescriptions in the elderly), adapted to the Italian setting, has been defined to determine inappropriate prescription at baseline and after the intervention phase. The primary outcome was a composite API.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan on 7th June 2017 (code 15/17). The investigators will communicate trial results to stakeholders, collaborators, and participants via appropriate presentations and publications.

Registration details: NCT04030468. EudraCT number 2017-002622-21

Registry-based trials have emerged as a potentially cost-saving study methodology. Early estimates of cost savings, however, conflated the benefits associated with registry utilisation and those associated with other aspects of pragmatic trial designs, which might not all be as broadly applicable. In this study, we sought to build a practical tool that investigators could use across disciplines to estimate the ranges of potential cost differences associated with implementing registry-based trials versus standard clinical trials.

We built simulation Markov models to compare unique costs associated with data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage under a registry-based trial design versus a standard clinical trial. We conducted one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying study characteristics over broad ranges, to determine thresholds at which investigators might optimally select each trial design.

Registry-based trials were more cost effective than standard clinical trials 98.6% of the time. Data-related cost savings ranged from $4300 to $600,000 with variation in study characteristics. Cost differences were most reactive to the number of patients in a study, the number of data elements per patient available in a registry, and the speed with which research coordinators could manually abstract data. Registry incorporation resulted in cost savings when as few as 3768 independent data elements were available and when manual data abstraction took as little as 3.4 seconds per data field.

Registries offer important resources for investigators. When available, their broad incorporation may help the scientific community reduce the costs of clinical investigation. We offer here a practical tool for investigators to assess potential costs savings.

Assessing the level of adherence and its determinants is important in appraising the overall effectiveness of trials. The present study aimed to evaluate the extent of adherence and its determinants in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of Fe prophylaxis during pregnancy in Maputo, Mozambique.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Two health centres (1o de Maio and Machava) in Maputo, Mozambique.

Pregnant women (≥12 weeks’ gestation, ≥18 years old, non-high-risk pregnancy; n 4326) attending prenatal care consultations at two health centres were randomized to receive routine Fe (n 2184; 60 mg ferrous sulfate plus 400 μg folic acid daily throughout pregnancy) or selective Fe (n 2142; screening and treatment for anaemia and daily intake of 1 mg folic acid).

The level of adherence was 79 % for having two or more visits, 53 % for adequate prenatal care and 67 % for complete intake of Fe/folic acid tablets during the trial. The correlation between the adherence measures ranged between 0·151 and 0·739. Adherence did not differ by trial arm, but there were centre differences in adequate prenatal visits and intake of tablets. Older women (>20 years) and those with a history of abortion were more likely to achieve greater adherence, whereas an increased number of previous births decreased the likelihood of adherence. HIV positivity decreased the likelihood of adherence in one trial centre and increased it in the other.

The variation in adherence by trial centre, women’s characteristics and outcome measures suggests that adherence in trials fully depends on participants’ behaviour and can be increased by paying attention to contextual factors.