Literature DB >> 15663116

What do they know?: a content analysis of women's perceptions of trial information.

Sara Kenyon1, Mary Dixon-Woods.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine interpretations of study information by women participating in ORACLE, a trial of antibiotics in preterm labour.
DESIGN: Questionnaire survey sent to women recruited to the ORACLE trial.
SETTING: United Kingdom. POPULATION: A questionnaire was sent to 3074 ORACLE participants in a purposively selected sample of 55 collaborating maternity units, chosen to reflect a range of regions and of district general and teaching hospitals.
METHODS: Content analysis was applied to verbatim text provided in response to an open question. Responses were also compared with a framework based on key points about the purpose of ORACLE. Closed questions were analysed using descriptive statistics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' interpretations of the purpose of the study.
RESULTS: A response rate of 61% was achieved, and 1462 participants provided written answers to a specific question on why the study was being carried out. Content analysis suggested that the information leaflet was highly valued as a source of information about the trial. There was evidence that women's interpretations of the purpose of the trial were not identical to those that the investigators intended. Of the five key points about the trial described in the information leaflet, 400 (27%) participants reported one key point, 550 (38%) two key points, 229 (16%) three key points and 23 (1.5%) four key points. None reported five key points and it was not possible to classify 46 responses (3%). Vague, confused understanding or poor recall were evident in 204 (14%) of responses.
CONCLUSION: Although the ORACLE trial was run as a model of good practice at the time, this study suggests that it may not be possible to demonstrate full understanding of trial purpose and design by all participants. Emphasis should be on the provision of full information that involves consumers in its design and evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15663116     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00293.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  5 in total

1.  Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Clare Jackson; Kate C Windridge; Sara Kenyon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-09

2.  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

3.  A comparison of patient knowledge of clinical trials and trialist priorities.

Authors:  P Cameron; G R Pond; R Y Xu; P M Ellis; J R Goffin
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Issues of informed consent for intrapartum trials: a suggested consent pathway from the experience of the Release trial [ISRCTN13204258].

Authors:  Gillian Vernon; Zarko Alfirevic; Andrew Weeks
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 5.  The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research.

Authors:  E Wilman; C Megone; S Oliver; L Duley; G Gyte; J M Wright
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.