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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2010

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research

Participants' preference for type of leaflet used to feed back the results of a randomised trial: a survey

Authors: Stephen Brealey, Lazaros Andronis, Laura Dennis, Christine Atwell, Stirling Bryan, Simon Coulton, Helen Cox, Ben Cross, Fiona Fylan, Andrew Garratt, Fiona Gilbert, Maureen Gillan, Maggie Hendry, Kerenza Hood, Helen Houston, David King, Veronica Morton, Michael Robling, Ian Russell, Clare Wilkinson

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Hundreds of thousands of volunteers take part in medical research, but many will never hear from researchers about what the study revealed. There is a growing demand for the results of randomised trials to be fed back to research participants both for ethical research practice and for ensuring their co-operation in a trial. This study aims to determine participants' preferences for type of leaflet (short versus long) used to summarise the findings of a randomised trial; and to test whether certain characteristics explained participants' preferences.

Methods

553 participants in a randomised trial about General Practitioners' access to Magnetic Resonance Imaging for patients presenting with suspected internal derangement of the knee were asked in the final follow-up questionnaire whether they would like to be fed back the results of the trial. Participants who agreed to this were included in a postal questionnaire survey asking about their preference, if any, between a short and a long leaflet and what it was about the leaflet that they preferred. Multinomial logistic regression was used to test whether certain demographics of responding participants along with treatment group explained whether a participant had a preference for type of leaflet or no preference.

Results

Of the participants who returned the final follow-up questionnaire, 416 (88%) agreed to receive the results of the trial. Subsequently 132 (32%) participants responded to the survey. Most participants preferred the longer leaflet (55%) and the main reasons for this were the use of technical information (94%) and diagrams (89%). There was weak evidence to suggest that gender might explain whether participants have a preference for type of leaflet or not (P = 0.084).

Conclusions

Trial participants want to receive feed back about the results and appear to prefer a longer leaflet. Males and females might require information to be communicated to them differently and should be the focus of further research.

Trial registration

The trial is registered with http://​www.​isrctn.​org/​ and ID is ISRCTN76616358.
Literature
1.
Goodare H, Smith R: The rights of patients in research. BMJ. 1995, 3: 1277-1278.CrossRef
2.
3.
Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C: Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2003, 25: 12-19. 10.2307/3564300.CrossRef
4.
Department of Health: Research governance framework for health and social care. 2005, London, 2
5.
Shalowitz DI, Miller FG: Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008, 5: 91-10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091.CrossRef
6.
Lancet: Trialists should tell participants results, but how?. The Lancet. 2006, 367: 1030-
7.
8.
Partridge AH, Winer EP: Informing clinical trial participants about study results. JAMA. 2002, 288: 363-365. 10.1001/jama.288.3.363.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ormondroyd E, Moynihan C, Watson M, Foster C, Davolls S, Arden-Jones A, Eeles R: Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: A qualitative study of the impact on relatives. J Genet Couns. 2007, 16: 527-38. 10.1007/s10897-007-9088-1.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S: Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: Qualitative study of participants' views. BMJ. 2006, 332: 206-210. 10.1136/bmj.38675.677963.3A.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
DAMASK Trial Team: Influence of magnetic resonance of the knee on GPs' decisions: a randomised trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2007, 57: 622-629.
12.
Damask Trial Team: Effectiveness of GP access to magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2008, 58: 767-774.
13.
Damask Trial Team: Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee for patients presenting in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2008, 58: 775-778.
14.
StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. 2008
15.
Long JS, Freese J: Models for nominal outcomes with case-specific data. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Edited by: Long JS, Freese J. 2006, Texas: Stata Press, 223-291.
16.
Partridge AH, Burstein HJ, Gelman RS, Marcom PK, Winer EP: Do patients participating in clinical trials want to know study results?. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003, 95: 491-492. 10.1093/jnci/95.6.491.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fernandez CV, Taweel S, Kodish E, Weijer C: Disclosure of research results to research participants: A pilot study of the needs and attitudes of adolescents and parents. Paediatr Child Health. 2005, 10: 332-334.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Fernandez CV, Gao J, Strahlendorf C, Moghrabi A, Pentz RD, Barfield RC, Baker JN, Santor D, Weijer C, Kodish E: The return of research results to participants: Attitudes and needs of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (6): 878-883. 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.5223.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Richards MP, Ponder M, Pharoah P, Everest S, Mackay J: Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J Med Ethics. 2003, 29: 93-96. 10.1136/jme.29.2.93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Elbourne D: Subjects' views about participation in a randomized controlled trial. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1998, 5: 3-8. 10.1080/02646838708403468.CrossRef
21.
Wang FC, Ubel PA: Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Making. 2005, 25: 398-405. 10.1177/0272989X05278931.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE: Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004, 291: 2359-2366. 10.1001/jama.291.19.2359.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL: The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun. 2006, 11: 569-582. 10.1080/10810730600829916.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, Brundage MD, Mackillop WJ: Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000, 20: 228-238. 10.1177/0272989X0002000208.CrossRefPubMed
25.
McCormick A, Fleming D, Charlton J: Morbidity Statistics from General Practice. Fourth national study 1991-1992. OPCS Series MB5 no.3. 1995, London: HMSO
26.
Dalal H, Wingham J, Pritchard C, Northey S, Evans P, Taylor RS, Campbell J: Communicating the results of research: how do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?. Health Expect. 2009, 13: 323-330.PubMed
27.
Dorsey ER, Beck CA, Adams M, Chadwick G, de Blieck EA, McCallum C, Briner L, Deuel L, Clarke A, Stewart R, Shoulson I, the Huntington Study Group TREND-HD Investigators: Communicating clinical trial results to research participants. Arch Neurol. 2008, 65 (12): 1590-1595. 10.1001/archneurol.2008.503.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Thornton H, Edwards A, Elwyn G: Evolving the multiple roles of 'patients' in health-care research: reflections after involvement in a trial of shared decision making. Health Expectations. 2003, 6: 189-197. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00231.x.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Donker T, van Straten A, Riper H, Marks I, Andersson G, Cuijpers P: Implementation of Internet-based preventive interventions for depression and anxiety: role of support? The design of a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2009, 10: 59-10.1186/1745-6215-10-59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Van Straten A, Cuijpers P, Smits N: Effectiveness of a Web-Based Self-Help Intervention for Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008, 10: e7-10.2196/jmir.954.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Mattson ME, Curb JD, McArdle R: Participation in a clinical trial: the patients' point of view. Control Clin Trials. 1985, 6: 156-167. 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90121-7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Rao JN: Giving medicine a fair trial: patients' altruism should be appreciated. BMJ. 2000, 321: 530-
33.
Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB: Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995, 40: 903-918. 10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-M.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Participants' preference for type of leaflet used to feed back the results of a randomised trial: a survey
Authors
Stephen Brealey
Lazaros Andronis
Laura Dennis
Christine Atwell
Stirling Bryan
Simon Coulton
Helen Cox
Ben Cross
Fiona Fylan
Andrew Garratt
Fiona Gilbert
Maureen Gillan
Maggie Hendry
Kerenza Hood
Helen Houston
David King
Veronica Morton
Michael Robling
Ian Russell
Clare Wilkinson
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-116

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Trials 1/2010 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The impact of care pathways for exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: rationale and design of a cluster randomized controlled trial

Commentary

Sharing clinical research data in the United States under the health insurance portability and accountability act and the privacy rule

Study protocol

Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

Study protocol

Strengthening health human resources and improving clinical outcomes through an integrated guideline and educational outreach in resource-poor settings: a cluster-randomized trial

Study protocol

Acupuncture for dry eye: a multicentre randomised controlled trial with active comparison intervention (artificial tear drop) using a mixed method approach protocol

Study protocol

JinQi-Jiangtang tablet, a Chinese patent medicine, for pre-diabetes: a randomized controlled trial