Literature DB >> 12757993

Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study.

Nicola Mills1, Jenny L Donovan, Monica Smith, Ann Jacoby, David E Neal, Freddie C Hamdy.   

Abstract

Recruitment to trials is known to be difficult. Previous research suggests that a crucial factor may be participants' difficulty with the concept of randomization. This study explored patients' perceptions of randomization and reasons for consent or refusal to participate in the ProtecT study (a randomized trial of surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring for localized prostate cancer). In-depth interviews were conducted with 21 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who were invited to participate in the ProtecT treatment trial. Interviewees were selected purposefully from three U.K. clinical centers to ensure the inclusion of similar proportions of those agreeing or refusing random treatment allocation in each of the treatment groups. Interviews explored men's recall and understanding of chance, comparison, and equipoise, and reasons for consent/refusal of randomization and acceptance/rejection of treatment allocation. Data were analyzed methodically using the techniques of constant comparison. Checking of coding and interpretation was assured by four experienced qualitative researchers. Recall and understanding of the major principles of the randomized design were good and were similar for "chance" and "comparison" between those who consented to and refused randomization. Clinical equipoise, however, caused difficulty. Almost all recalled and understood it, but those who found it acceptable tended to consent to randomization and those who could not accept it tended to refuse to participate. Belief in clinical equipoise was key to participants' consent to randomization. Ensuring patients understand and accept equipoise may thus increase their readiness to consent to participate in trials. A priority for future research is to focus on the provision and presentation of suitable and effective trial information, concentrating in particular on the neglected concept of clinical equipoise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12757993     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00020-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  47 in total

1.  Clinical equipoise and personal equipoise: two necessary ingredients for reducing bias in manual therapy trials.

Authors:  Chad Cook; Charles Sheets
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2011-02

Review 2.  Recommendations for enhancing clinical trials education: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Karen A Stepan; Amy P Gonzalez; Vivian S Dorsey; Debra K Frye; Nita D Pyle; Regina F Smith; Terry A Throckmorton; Louise A Villejo; Scott B Cantor
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  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

4.  Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.

Authors:  Patrick L Ergina; Jonathan A Cook; Jane M Blazeby; Isabelle Boutron; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Barnaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey K Aronson; Jeffrey S Barkun; W Bruce Campbell; Jonathan A Cook; Liane S Feldman; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; Guy J Maddern; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Steven M Strasberg; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Choosing surgery: patients' preferences within a trial of treatments for anterior cruciate ligament injury. A qualitative study.

Authors:  Carina A Thorstensson; L Stefan Lohmander; Richard B Frobell; Ewa M Roos; Rachael Gooberman-Hill
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-08-10       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self.

Authors:  Sharon K McCann; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-03-22       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Preference assessment of recruitment into a randomized trial for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Lori A Dolan; Vani Sabesan; Stuart L Weinstein; Kevin F Spratt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Understanding motivations to participate in an observational research study: Why do patients enroll?

Authors:  Michael C Soule; Eleanor E Beale; Laura Suarez; Scott R Beach; Carol A Mastromauro; Christopher M Celano; Shannon V Moore; Jeff C Huffman
Journal:  Soc Work Health Care       Date:  2016-03-02

9.  Why is recruitment to trials difficult? An investigation into recruitment difficulties in an RCT of supported employment in patients with severe mental illness.

Authors:  Louise Howard; Isabel de Salis; Zelda Tomlin; Graham Thornicroft; Jenny Donovan
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 2.226

10.  Methodological challenges in online trials.

Authors:  Elizabeth Murray; Zarnie Khadjesari; Ian R White; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Christine Godfrey; Jim McCambridge; Simon G Thompson; Paul Wallace
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.