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
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 6/2013

01-06-2013 | Original Article

Why don’t women participate? A qualitative study on non-participation in a surgical randomised controlled trial

Authors: D. Gopinath, A. R. B. Smith, C. Holland, F. M. Reid

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 6/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of the study was to identify reasons why women declined participation in a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) under general anaesthetic (GA) with single incision sling (SIS) under local anaesthetic (LA). These data would inform the design of a larger trial to improve patient recruitment.

Methods

This was a qualitative interview study on women eligible to have a TVT for stress urinary incontinence in a tertiary referral hospital in the UK. Women were counselled in a standardised manner. They were informed that the short-term success rates were similar for both operations. Women who declined to take part in the RCT were interviewed using a topic guide. Themes and sub-themes on non-participation were identified by two independent observers using a constant comparison method.

Results

Twenty-three non-participants of the RCT were interviewed. Common themes for non-participation were a preference for TVT and request for GA. Sub-themes showed that the TVT was preferred due to its perceived better efficacy as well as a minimal benefit from a SIS and also an unwillingness to take unknown risks. GA was favoured due to fear of local awareness, past negative experiences and embarrassment. Additional tests and follow-up visits were not cited as a reason for non-participation.

Conclusions

The study found that non-participants are not research averse in general but they had strong preferences about specific aspects of treatment. Risk propensity and personality may also influence this behaviour. The study also demonstrates how a qualitative pilot study may improve trial design.
Literature
1.
2.
Fung EK, Loré JM (2002) Randomized controlled trials for evaluating surgical questions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128(6):631–634PubMed
3.
Gattellari M, Ward JE, Solomon MJ (2001) Randomized, controlled trials in surgery: perceived barriers and attitudes of Australian colorectal surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 44(10):1413–1420PubMedCrossRef
4.
Jack WJL, Chetty U, Rodger A (1990) Recruitment to a prospective breast conservation trial: why are so few patients randomised? BMJ 301(6743):83–85PubMedCrossRef
5.
Plaisier PW, Berger MY, van der Hul RL et al (1994) Unexpected difficulties in randomizing patients in a surgical trial: a prospective study comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with open cholecystectomy. World J Surg 18(5):769–772, discussion 773PubMedCrossRef
6.
Bijker N, Peterse JL, Fentiman IS et al (2002) Effects of patient selection on the applicability of results from a randomised clinical trial (EORTC 10853) investigating breast-conserving therapy for DCIS. Br J Cancer 87(6):615–620PubMedCrossRef
7.
Abraham NS, Hewett P, Young JM et al (2006) Non-entry of eligible patients into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. ANZ J Surg 76(9):825–829PubMedCrossRef
8.
Tincello DG, Kenyon S, Slack M et al (2009) Colposuspension or TVT with anterior repair for urinary incontinence and prolapse: results of and lessons from a pilot randomised patient-preference study (CARPET 1). BJOG 116(13):1809–1814PubMedCrossRef
9.
Featherstone K, Donovan JL (2002) “Why don’t they just tell me straight, why allocate it?” The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med 55(5):709–719PubMedCrossRef
10.
Britton A, McKee M, Black N et al (1999) Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4(2):112–121PubMed
11.
Ward KL, Hilton P, United Kingdom and Ireland Tension-free Vaginal Tape Trial Group (2002) Prospective multicentre randomised trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence. BMJ 325:67–70PubMedCrossRef
12.
Lee KS, Choo MS, Doo CK et al (2008) The long term (5-years) objective TVT success rate does not depend on predictive factors at multivariate analysis: a multicentre retrospective study. Eur Urol 53:176–183PubMedCrossRef
13.
Serels S, Douso M, Short G (2009) Preliminary findings with the Solyx single-incision sling system in female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(5):557–561
14.
Spradley JP (ed) (1979) The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
15.
Patton MQ (ed) (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
16.
Abdel-Fattah M, Ford JA, Lim CP et al (2011) Single-incision mini-slings versus standard midurethral slings in surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications. Eur Urol 60(3):468–480PubMedCrossRef
17.
Latthe PM (2008) Review of transobturator and retropubic tape procedures for stress urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20(4):331–336PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA (2010) Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 11:31PubMedCrossRef
20.
Jenkins V, Fallowfield L (2000) Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer 82(11):1783–1788PubMedCrossRef
21.
Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2006) A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery 139(4):469–483PubMedCrossRef
22.
Jackson CJ, Dixon-Woods M, Eborall H et al (2010) Women’s views and experiences of a patient preference trial in surgery: a qualitative study of the CARPET1 trial. Clin Trials 7:696–704PubMedCrossRef
23.
Brocklehurst P (1997) Partially randomised patient preference trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(12):1332–1335PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zuckerman M, Eysenck S, Eysenck HJ (1978) Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. J Consult Clin Psychol 46(1):139–149PubMedCrossRef
25.
Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM et al (2008) Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer. Arch Surg 143(4):389–394PubMedCrossRef
26.
Young JM, Solomon MJ, Harrison JD et al (2008) Measuring patient preference and surgeon choice. Surgery 143(5):582–588PubMedCrossRef
27.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC et al (1991) Patients’ willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Soc Sci Med 32(1):35–42PubMedCrossRef
28.
Berg BL (ed) (2001) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, p 303
Metadata
Title
Why don’t women participate? A qualitative study on non-participation in a surgical randomised controlled trial
Authors
D. Gopinath
A. R. B. Smith
C. Holland
F. M. Reid
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1967-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

International Urogynecology Journal 6/2013 Go to the issue

Case Report

Vaginally inserted herbs causing vesico-vaginal fistula and vaginal stenosis

Original Article

Measurement of the Q-tip angle before and after tension-free vaginal tape-obturator (TVT-O): preoperative urethral mobility may predict surgical outcome

Original Article

Management of ureterovaginal fistulae: an audit

Original Article

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20

Original Article

A repeat mid-urethral sling as valuable treatment for persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence

Review Article

Stress urinary incontinence in pregnant women: a review of prevalence, pathophysiology, and treatment