Skip to content

Use of Nudges To Enhance Enrollment in Critical Care Research

A Randomized Trial of Nudges To Enhance Enrollment in Critical Care Research

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03284359
Enrollment
182
Registered
2017-09-15
Start date
2018-02-19
Completion date
2019-08-08
Last updated
2021-03-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Critical Illness

Keywords

Critical Illness, Mechanical Ventilation, Economics, Behavioral, Surrogate decision maker

Brief summary

Difficulties enrolling patients in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have long been recognized as a major barrier to successful evaluation of medical interventions. This is particularly problematic among intensive care unit (ICU) trials, of which more than one-third do not reach target enrollment. Under-enrollment and selective enrollment reduce RCTs' abilities to answer the research questions, thereby degrading the trials' scientific value and ethics. Current evidence suggests that financial incentives can ethically increase study enrollment, but this approach can pose large up-front costs to researchers. However, several nonmonetary behavioral interventions, or nudges, may offer novel and easily scalable approaches to increase enrollment in RCTs. The investigation team propose a 2-arm RCT in 10 ICUs at Penn to test the relative effectiveness of nudges on enrollment rates. Investigators hypothesize that a bundle of nudges during recruitment will increase enrollment rates compared to usual recruitment procedures will increase enrollment. Investigators will enroll 182 critically ill patients' surrogate decision makers(participants) to engage in recruitment procedures for a simulated RCT comparing two mechanical ventilation weaning protocols among mechanically ventilated patients. Investigators will also measure participants' assessment of risk of the simulated trial after the informed consent process. This work will provide the first empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of inexpensive, scalable nudges to potentially augment enrollment and reduce costs of future clinical trials.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALPre-Consent Nudge Bundle

The pre-consent nudge bundle survey was developed by the study team and incorporates several behavioral interventions into a bundle of 5 types of nudges: (i) injunctive norms; (ii) descriptive norms; (iii) duty of reciprocity; (iv) self-prophecy; and (v) foot-in-the-door. Injunctive norms involve the perception of what behavior is acceptable, while descriptive norms highlight what behaviors others are engaging in. The duty of reciprocity is the sense that one should repeat pro-social behavior for which they have benefited from. The foot-in-the-door nudge involves asking a participant to perform a small request which has a high consent rate followed by a larger request. The bundle consists of six questions and one statement.

Sponsors

University of Pennsylvania
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

Surrogate decision-makers of patients who are: 1. Patient and surrogate is 18 years of age or older 2. Surrogate is English-proficient 3. Patient is mechanically ventilated 4. Patient is admitted to participating ICU

Exclusion criteria

Surrogate decision-makers of patients who are: 1. Patient is receiving comfort care only 2. Patient has anticipated extubation in the next 24 hours. 3. Patient with tracheostomy. 4. Bedside clinician declines patient participation. 5. Surrogate decision maker not available to approach prior to patient being extubated.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Consent RateUp to 96 hoursThe primary outcome is consent rate for a simulated RCT. This is an easily measurable binary outcome that has the potential for significant impact on future trial recruitment.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Risk AssessmentUp to 96 hoursSecondarily we will quantitatively assess the participant's assessment of the risk of participating in the simulated RCT. The risk assessment tool has been previously used in the assessment of risk perception of RCT participation in the setting of behavioral economic nudges. The risk assessment will be used to evaluate participants' impressions of the risk of participating in the RCT using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not risky at all) to 7 (very risky), as well as 9 comparative questions, each of which asks whether a study procedure was riskier than another risky activity, such as talking on one's cell phone while driving.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Pre-Consent Nudge Bundle
Arm 1 will be administered a novel pre-consent nudge bundle which incorporates several behavioral economic interventions within a brief survey. Participants will subsequently be asked by the same research personnel to participate in a simulated randomized control trial (RCT) comparing two mechanical ventilation weaning protocols among mechanically ventilated patients. Participants will receive the standard consent form followed by a risk assessment and demographic survey. Pre-Consent Nudge Bundle: The pre-consent nudge bundle survey was developed by the study team and incorporates several behavioral interventions into a bundle of 5 types of nudges: (i) injunctive norms; (ii) descriptive norms; (iii) duty of reciprocity; (iv) self-prophecy; and (v) foot-in-the-door. Injunctive norms involve the perception of what behavior is acceptable, while descriptive norms highlight what behaviors others are engaging in. The duty of reciprocity is the sense that one should repeat pro-social behavior for which they have benefited from. The foot-in-the-door nudge involves asking a participant to perform a small request which has a high consent rate followed by a larger request. The bundle consists of six questions and one statement.
93
Standard Consent
Arm 2 will serve as the control arm. Participants will be approached by the research personnel to participate in a simulated RCT comparing two mechanical ventilation weaning protocols among mechanically ventilated patients. Participants will receive a standard consent form as detailed in the Study Instruments section. Following the consent process participants will conduct the same risk assessment survey and demographic survey.
89
Total182

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPre-Consent Nudge BundleStandard ConsentTotal
Age, Continuous61.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.6
58.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.2
60 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.5
Length of ICU stay at enrollment97.8 Hours
STANDARD_DEVIATION 73.1
114.5 Hours
STANDARD_DEVIATION 90.6
106.2 Hours
STANDARD_DEVIATION 81.9
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
15 Participants23 Participants38 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
4 Participants7 Participants11 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
74 Participants59 Participants133 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
35 Participants36 Participants71 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
58 Participants53 Participants111 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 930 / 89
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 930 / 89
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 930 / 89

Outcome results

Primary

Consent Rate

The primary outcome is consent rate for a simulated RCT. This is an easily measurable binary outcome that has the potential for significant impact on future trial recruitment.

Time frame: Up to 96 hours

Population: Intention to treat

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Pre-Consent Nudge BundleConsent Rate27 Participants
Standard ConsentConsent Rate30 Participants
Secondary

Risk Assessment

Secondarily we will quantitatively assess the participant's assessment of the risk of participating in the simulated RCT. The risk assessment tool has been previously used in the assessment of risk perception of RCT participation in the setting of behavioral economic nudges. The risk assessment will be used to evaluate participants' impressions of the risk of participating in the RCT using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not risky at all) to 7 (very risky), as well as 9 comparative questions, each of which asks whether a study procedure was riskier than another risky activity, such as talking on one's cell phone while driving.

Time frame: Up to 96 hours

Population: Intention to treat

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Pre-Consent Nudge BundleRisk Assessment2 units on a scale
Standard ConsentRisk Assessment2 units on a scale

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 18, 2026