Literature DB >> 12364308

Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult.

Jenny Donovan1, Nicola Mills, Monica Smith, Lucy Brindle, Ann Jacoby, Tim Peters, Stephen Frankel, David Neal, Freddie Hamdy.   

Abstract

PROBLEM: Recruitment to randomised trials is often difficult, and many important trials are not mounted because recruitment is thought to be "impossible."
DESIGN: Controversial ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) trial embedded within qualitative research. BACKGROUND AND
SETTING: Screening for prostate cancer is hotly debated, and evidence from trials about the effectiveness of treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring) is lacking. Mounting a treatment trial is controversial because of past failures and concerns that differences in complications of treatment but not survival make randomisation unacceptable to patients and clinicians, particularly for a trial including monitoring. STRATEGY FOR CHANGE: In-depth interviews explored interpretation of study information. Audiotape recordings of recruitment appointments enabled scrutiny of content and presentation of study information by recruiters. Initial qualitative findings showed that recruiters had difficulty discussing equipoise and presenting treatments equally; they unknowingly used terminology that was misinterpreted by participants. Findings were used to determine changes to content and presentation of information. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Changes to the order of presenting treatments encouraged emphasis on equivalence, misinterpreted terms were avoided, the non-radical arm was redefined, and randomisation and clinical equipoise were presented more convincingly. The randomisation rate increased from 40% to 70%, all treatments became acceptable, and the three arm trial became the preferred design. LESSONS LEARNT: Changes to information and presentation resulted in efficient recruitment acceptable to patients and clinicians. Embedding this controversial trial within qualitative research improved recruitment. Such methods probably have wider applicability and may enable even the most difficult evaluative questions to be tackled.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12364308      PMCID: PMC1124277          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  13 in total

1.  Few patients with prostate cancer are willing to be randomised to treatment.

Authors:  P O'Reilly; L Martin; G Collins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-05

2.  Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure.

Authors:  G Tognoni; C Alli; F Avanzini; G Bettelli; F Colombo; R Corso; R Marchioli; A Zussino
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-10-19

3.  Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial.

Authors:  C Snowdon; J Garcia; D Elbourne
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Qualitative study of interpretation of reassurance among patients attending rheumatology clinics: "just a touch of arthritis, doctor?".

Authors:  J L Donovan; D R Blake
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-26

Review 5.  Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Ross; A Grant; C Counsell; W Gillespie; I Russell; R Prescott
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Randomised controlled trials in general practice.

Authors:  M Pringle; R Churchill
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-11-25

Review 7.  Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  S Selley; J Donovan; A Faulkner; J Coast; D Gillatt
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  K Featherstone; J L Donovan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

9.  Clinical trial participation. Viewpoints from racial/ethnic groups.

Authors:  N L Roberson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  "Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Katie Featherstone; Jenny L Donovan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  195 in total

1.  'What difference does it make?' Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients.

Authors:  Steven Gillard; Rohan Borschmann; Kati Turner; Norman Goodrich-Purnell; Kathleen Lovell; Mary Chambers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Ethics of clinical trials from a bayesian and decision analytic perspective: whose equipoise is it anyway?

Authors:  Richard J Lilford
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-03

3.  Better communication is key to recruiting patients to trials.

Authors:  Colleen Shannon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-12-13

4.  Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: randomisation to clinical trials may solve dilemma of treatment choice in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; David E Neal
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-28

5.  Immunisation policy: from compliance to concordance?

Authors:  J Gervase Vernon
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Prostate specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-05

7.  Treatment of localised prostate cancer with radiation therapy: evidence versus opinion.

Authors:  Ferran Guedea; Alfredo Ramos; Ismael Herruzo; José Antonio Sánchez Calzado; Jorge Contreras; Jesús Romero; Jordi Craven-Bartle; Patricia Willisch; José Luis López Torrecilla; Xavier Maldonado; Gemma Sancho; Almudena Zapatero; Montserrat Ferrer; Yolanda Pardo; Pablo Fernández; Alfonso Mariño; Asunción Hervás; Víctor Macís; Ana Boladeras; Ferran Ferrer; Brian J Davis
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.405

8.  Passing the baton: Community-based ethnography to design a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among Black men who have sex with men.

Authors:  Jonathan Garcia; Paul W Colson; Caroline Parker; Jennifer S Hirsch
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  'Catch it early, save a life and save a breast': this misleading mantra of mammography.

Authors:  Michael Baum
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Participating in a trial in a critical situation: a qualitative study in pregnancy.

Authors:  S Kenyon; M Dixon-Woods; C J Jackson; K Windridge; E Pitchforth
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.