Literature DB >> 11737404

Does an HIV clinical trial information booklet improve patient knowledge and understanding of HIV clinical trials?

N J Ives1, M Troop, A Waters, S Davies, C Higgs, P J Easterbrook.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of an information booklet on HIV clinical trials, Clinical Trials in HIV and AIDS: Information For People Who Are Thinking About Joining a Trial, in addition to the standard trial information (SI) on patients' knowledge; understanding and attitudes about clinical trials; and to investigate patients' motivations and reasons for enrolling or not enrolling in a clinical trial.
METHODS: Fifty HIV-1 positive patients who attended the HIV clinic at a west London hospital were randomized to receive either SI alone (n = 27) or SI and a 16 page information booklet explaining the principles and procedures of HIV clinical trials (n = 23). A self-administered questionnaire was used at baseline to assess past experience and attitudes to clinical trials (10 questions), knowledge and understanding of HIV treatments (8 questions) and clinical trials (11 questions). At 2-6 months after randomization, a second interviewer-administered questionnaire addressed the patient's assessment of the usefulness and comprehensiveness of the information provided by the SI and information booklet, whether or not the patient had enrolled in a clinical trial and reasons for enrolling/not enrolling, knowledge of specific aspects of the trial protocol the patient was eligible to join (13 questions) and general knowledge of clinical trial procedures (repeat of 11 baseline questions). Changes in the attitudes and scores on knowledge and understanding of clinical trials were compared for the two groups.
RESULTS: In both groups, patient knowledge of clinical trial procedures improved significantly over the study period. The median score increased from 30 at baseline to 35/44 at follow-up (SI only) vs. 24-31/44 (SI plus booklet), but this did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, knowledge of the specific trial protocol was poor [median score 13/25, interquartile range (IQR) 8-14], and there was no difference in the scores for the two groups. The prime motivations for joining a clinical trial were to benefit personal health and to gain access to new treatments. Potential side-effects were the main concern of prospective trial participants.
CONCLUSIONS: This small trial shows that, while the patients' general knowledge and understanding of clinical trials improved over time, this was not improved by the information booklet and recollection of the details of the relevant trial protocol remained poor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11737404     DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-2662.2001.00084.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HIV Med        ISSN: 1464-2662            Impact factor:   3.180


  10 in total

1.  Multi-Media Educational Tool Increases Knowledge of Clinical Trials in Uganda.

Authors:  Barbara Castelnuovo; Kevin Newell; Yukari C Manabe; Gavin Robertson
Journal:  J Clin Res Bioeth       Date:  2014-01-02

2.  Study participation rate of patients with acute spinal cord injury early during rehabilitation.

Authors:  J Krebs; A Katrin Brust; S Tesini; M Guler; G Mueller; I M Velstra; A Frotzler
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 2.772

3.  Healthy women's motivators and barriers to participation in a breast cancer cohort study: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Pamela S Sinicrope; Christi A Patten; Sarah M Bonnema; Julka R Almquist; Christina M Smith; Timothy J Beebe; Steven J Jacobsen; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2009-03-09       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 4.  Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan Cook; Cynthia Fraser; Elizabeth Mitchell; Frank Sullivan; Catherine Jackson; Tyna K Taskila; Heidi Gardner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-22

5.  Women in HIV cure research: multilevel interventions to improve sex equity in recruitment.

Authors:  Mary E Grewe; Yuntong Ma; Adam Gilbertson; Stuart Rennie; Joseph D Tucker
Journal:  J Virus Erad       Date:  2016

6.  An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial.

Authors:  Sarah Cockayne; Caroline Fairhurst; Joy Adamson; Catherine Hewitt; Robin Hull; Kate Hicks; Anne-Maree Keenan; Sarah E Lamb; Lorraine Green; Caroline McIntosh; Hylton B Menz; Anthony C Redmond; Sara Rodgers; David J Torgerson; Wesley Vernon; Judith Watson; Peter Knapp; Jo Rick; Peter Bower; Sandra Eldridge; Vichithranie W Madurasinghe; Jonathan Graffy
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Pauline Lockhart; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Kjeldstrøm; Marit Johansen; Taina K Taskila; Frank M Sullivan; Sue Wilson; Catherine Jackson; Ritu Jones; Elizabeth D Mitchell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials.

Authors:  Vichithranie W Madurasinghe
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Authors:  Leila Rooshenas; Lauren J Scott; Jane M Blazeby; Chris A Rogers; Kate M Tilling; Samantha Husbands; Carmel Conefrey; Nicola Mills; Robert C Stein; Chris Metcalfe; Andrew J Carr; David J Beard; Tim Davis; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Marcus Jepson; Kerry Avery; Daisy Elliott; Caroline Wilson; Jenny L Donovan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation.

Authors:  Katie Gillies; Wan Huang; Zoë Skea; Jamie Brehaut; Seonaidh Cotton
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 2.279

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.