Predictors of recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials of behavioural smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Alessio Bricca* (Corresponding Author), Zoe Swithenbank, Neil Scott, Shaun Treweek, Marie Johnston, Nicola Black, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Robert West, Susan Michie, Marijn de Bruin

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)


Aim: To investigate predictors of participant eligibility, recruitment, and retention in behavioural randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for smoking cessation.
Method: Systematic review and pre-specified meta-regression analysis of behavioural RCTs for smoking cessation including adult (≥18 years old) smokers. The pre-specified predictors were identified through a literature review and experts’ consultation and included participant, trial and intervention characteristics and recruitment and retention strategies. Measurements included eligibility rates (proportion of people eligible for the trials), recruitment rates,
retention rates, and differential retention rates.
Results: 172 RCTs with 89,639 participants. Eligibility [median 57.6%; IQR 34.7-83.7], recruitment [median 66.4%; IQR 42.7-85.2] and retention rates [median 80.5%; IQR 42.7-48 85.2] varied considerably across studies. For eligibility rates, the recruitment strategy appeared not to be associated with eligibility rates. For recruitment rates, use of indirect recruitment strategies (e.g., public announcements) [OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.82] and self51 help interventions [OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.67] were associated with lower recruitment rates.
For retention rates, higher retention was seen if the sample had ongoing physical health condition/s [OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.04–2.63] whereas lower retention was seen amongst primarily female samples [OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.98] and those motivated to quit smoking [OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55–0.99], when indirect recruitment methods were used [OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38–0.97], and at longer follow-up assessments [OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79–0.87]. For differential retention, higher retention in the intervention group occurred when the intervention but not comparator group received financial incentives for smoking cessation [OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02-1.77].
Conclusions: In randomised controlled trials of behavioural smoking cessation interventions, recruitment and retention rates appear to be higher for smoking cessation interventions that include a person-to-person rather than at-a-distance contact; male participants, smokers with chronic conditions, smokers not initially motivated to quit and shorter follow-up assessments seems to be associated with improved retention; financial incentive interventions improve retention in groups receiving them relative to comparison groups
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)299-311
Number of pages13
Issue number2
Early online date8 Jul 2021
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2022

Bibliographical note

This work was funded by Cancer Research UK (application number C50862/A25405). The funder had no role in pro- tocol design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Open access via Wiley agreement


Dive into the research topics of 'Predictors of recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials of behavioural smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this