Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Stroke | Research

Hope and despair: a qualitative exploration of the experiences and impact of trial processes in a rehabilitation trial

Authors: Meriel Norris, Leon Poltawski, Raff Calitri, Anthony I. Shepherd, Sarah G. Dean, on behalf of the ReTrain Team

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Unanticipated responses by research participants can influence randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple ways, many of which are poorly understood. This study used qualitative interviews as part of an embedded process evaluation to explore the impact participants may have on the study, but also unintended impacts the study may have on them.

Aim

The aim of the study was to explore participants’ experiences and the impact of trial involvement in a pilot RCT in order to inform the designing and delivery of a definitive RCT.

Methods

In-depth interviews with 20 participants (10 in the intervention and 10 in the control group) enrolled in a stroke rehabilitation pilot trial. A modified framework approach was used to analyse transcripts.

Results

Participation in the study was motivated partly by a desperation to receive further rehabilitation after discharge. Responses to allocation to the control group included an increased commitment to self-treatment, and negative psychological consequences were also described. Accounts of participants in both control and intervention groups challenge the presumption that they were neutral, or in equipoise, regarding group allocation prior to consenting to randomisation.

Conclusions

Considering and exploring participant and participation effects, particularly in the control group, highlights numerous issues in the interpretation of trial studies, as well as the in ethics of RCTs more generally. While suggestions for a definitive trial design are given, further research is required to investigate the significant implications these findings may have for trial design, monitoring and funding.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02429180. Registered on 29 April/2015.
Literature
1.
O’Connell N, Moseley G, McAuley J, Wand B, Herbert R. Interpreting effectiveness evidence in pain: short tour of contemporary issues. Phys Ther. 2015;95(8):1087–94.CrossRef
2.
Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J, Team R. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Br Med J. 2006;332(7538):413–6.CrossRef
3.
Poltawski L, Norris M, Dean S. Intervention fidelity: developing an experience based model for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46:609–15.CrossRef
4.
McCambridge J, Kypri K, Elbourne D. Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:845–9.CrossRef
5.
McCambridge J, Sorhaindo A, Quirk A, Nanchahal K. Patient preferences and performance bias in a weight loss trial with a usual care arm. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95:243–7.CrossRef
6.
Preference Collaborative Review Group. Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2008;337:a1864.CrossRef
7.
King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomised trials: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293:1089–99.CrossRef
8.
Appelbaum P, Roth L, Lidz C, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconcenption. Hast Cent Rep. 1987;7(2):20–4.CrossRef
9.
Robinson E, Kerr C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Edwards S. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:811–24.CrossRef
10.
11.
Bower P, King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Sibbald B. Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: conceptual framework and implications for research. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:685–95.CrossRef
12.
Chard J, Lilford R. The use of equipoise in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(7):891–8.CrossRef
13.
Wade J, Donovana J, Lanea J, Nealb D, Hamdy F. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2018–28.CrossRef
14.
Brown R, Butow P, Ellis P, Boyle F, Tattersall M. Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials: describing current practice. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:2445–57.CrossRef
15.
Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Br Med J. 2002;325:766–70.CrossRef
16.
Harrop E, Noble S, Edwards M, Sivell S, Moore B, Nelson A. “I didn’t really understand it, I just thought it’d help”: exploring the motivations, understandings and experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer participating in a non-placebo clinical IMP trial. Trials. 2016;17:329–40.CrossRef
17.
Toye F, Williamson E, Williams M, Fairbank J, Lamb S. What value can qualitative research add to quantitative research design? An example from an adolescent idiopathic scoliosis trail feasibility study. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1838–50.CrossRef
18.
Dean S, Poltawski L, Forster A, Taylor R, Spencer A, James M, Allison R, Stevens S, Norris M, Shepherd A, Calitri R. Community-based rehabilitation training after stroke: protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain). BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012375.CrossRef
19.
Dean S, Poltawski L, Forster A, Taylor R, Spencer A, James M, Allison R, Stevens S, Norris M, Shepherd A, Calitri R. Community-based rehabilitation training after stroke: results of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain) investigating acceptability and feasibility. BMJ. Open in press.
20.
Stroke Association. Exercise and stroke. London: Stroke association resources 7, version 1, 2013.
21.
Balchin T. The successful stroke survivor: a new guide to functional recovery from stroke. Lingfield: ARNI Trust; 2011.
22.
23.
Packer M. The science of qualitative research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
24.
Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2009.
25.
Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidenced based medicine. In: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). 5th ed. Chichester: Wiley, BMJ Books; 2014. p. 164–77.
26.
Scott C, Walker J, White P, Lewith G. Forging convictions: the effects of active participation in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:2041–8.CrossRef
27.
McCann S, Campbell M, Entwistle V. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials. 2010;11:31–41.CrossRef
28.
MacNeill V, Foley M, Quirk A, McCambridge J. Shedding light on research participation effects in behaviour change trials: a qualitative study examining research participant experiences. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:91–8.CrossRef
29.
Mills N, Donovan J, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal D, Hamdy F. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:272–82.CrossRef
30.
Doherty C, Stavropoulou C, Saunders M, Brown T. The consent process: enabling or disabling patients’ active participation? Health. 2015;21(2):205–22.CrossRef
31.
Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.CrossRef
32.
Murray J, Young J, Forster A, Ashworth R. Developing a primary care-based stroke model: the prevalence of longer-term problems experienced by patients and carers. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(495):803–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Ch’ng A, French D, Mclean N. Coping with the challenges of recovery from stroke. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(8):1136–46.CrossRef
34.
Townend S, Whyte S, Desborough T, Crimmins D, Markus R, Levi C, Sturm J. Longitudinal prevalence and determinants of early mood disorder post-stroke. J Clin Neurosci. 2007;14:429–34.CrossRef
35.
Lindström D, Sundberg-Petersson I, Adami J, Tönnesen H. Disappointment and drop-out rate after being allocated to control group in a smoking cessation trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010;31:22–6.CrossRef
36.
Vist G, Hagen K, Devereaux P, Bryant D, Kristoffersen D, Oxman A. Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome. BMJ. 2005;330:1175.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Hope and despair: a qualitative exploration of the experiences and impact of trial processes in a rehabilitation trial
Authors
Meriel Norris
Leon Poltawski
Raff Calitri
Anthony I. Shepherd
Sarah G. Dean
on behalf of the ReTrain Team
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Stroke
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3633-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Intensive insulin therapy versus plasmapheresis in the management of hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (Bi-TPAI trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

The ASSIST Study - The BD Odon Device for assisted vaginal birth: a safety and feasibility study

Study protocol

A multicentre parallel-group randomised trial assessing multiparametric MRI characterisation and image-guided biopsy of prostate in men suspected of having prostate cancer: MULTIPROS study protocol

Study protocol

Evaluating the safety and feasibility of a new surgical treatment for forearm fractures in older children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

A study protocol for the N-ICE trial: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) as a pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine (“ice”) dependence

Study protocol

Strengthening Referral Networks for Management of Hypertension Across the Health System (STRENGTHS) in western Kenya: a study protocol of a cluster randomized trial