Recruitment techniques for alcohol pharmacotherapy clinical trials: A cost-benefit analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) represent a large public health burden with relatively few efficacious pharmacotherapies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for new AUD therapies can be hampered by ineffective recruitment, leading to increased trial costs. The current analyses examined the effectiveness of recruitment efforts during two consecutive outpatient RCTs of novel AUD pharmacotherapies conducted between 2009 and 2012.

METHODS: During an initial phone screen, participants identified an ad source for learning about the study. Qualified persons were then scheduled for in-person screens. The present analyses examined demographic differences amongst the eight ad sources utilized. Recruitment effectiveness was determined by dividing the number of persons meeting criteria for an in-person screen by the total number of callers from each ad source. Cost-effectiveness was determined by dividing total ad source cost by number of screens, participants randomized, and completers.

RESULTS: 1,813 calls resulted in 1,005 completed phone screens. The most common ad source was TV (34%), followed by print (29%), word-of-mouth (11%), flyer (8%), internet (5%), radio (5%), bus ad (2%), and billboard (1%). Participants reporting bus ads (46%), billboard (44%), or print ads (34%) were significantly more likely than the other sources to meet criteria to be scheduled for in-person screens. The most cost-effective ad source was print ($2,506 per completer), while bus ad was the least cost-effective ($13,376 per completer).

CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment in AUD RCTs can be successful using diverse advertising methods. The present analyses favored use of print ads as most cost-effective.