OBJECTIVE: To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Cornwall, southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS). METHOD: Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study. RESULTS:In March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web. CONCLUSION:Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Cornwall, southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS). METHOD:Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study. RESULTS: In March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web. CONCLUSION: Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting.
Authors: C V Fernandez; D Santor; C Weijer; C Strahlendorf; A Moghrabi; R Pentz; J Gao; E Kodish Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: R S Taylor; A Watt; H M Dalal; P H Evans; J L Campbell; K L Q Read; A J Mourant; Jenny Wingham; D R Thompson; D J Pereira Gray Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Christopher A Beck; Mary Adams; Gary Chadwick; Elisabeth A de Blieck; Colleen McCallum; Leslie Briner; Lisa Deuel; Anthony Clarke; Rick Stewart; Ira Shoulson Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-12
Authors: Conrad Vincent Fernandez; Jun Gao; Caron Strahlendorf; Albert Moghrabi; Rebecca Davis Pentz; Raymond Carlton Barfield; Justin Nathaniel Baker; Darcy Santor; Charles Weijer; Eric Kodish Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Conrad V Fernandez; Kathleen Ruccione; Robert J Wells; Jay B Long; Wendy Pelletier; Mary C Hooke; Rebecca D Pentz; Robert B Noll; Justin N Baker; Maura O'Leary; Gregory Reaman; Peter C Adamson; Steven Joffe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephen Brealey; Lazaros Andronis; Laura Dennis; Christine Atwell; Stirling Bryan; Simon Coulton; Helen Cox; Ben Cross; Fiona Fylan; Andrew Garratt; Fiona Gilbert; Maureen Gillan; Maggie Hendry; Kerenza Hood; Helen Houston; David King; Veronica Morton; Michael Robling; Ian Russell; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Trials Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: José A Sacristán; Alfonso Aguarón; Cristina Avendaño-Solá; Pilar Garrido; Juan Carrión; Alipio Gutiérrez; Robert Kroes; Angeles Flores Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Annabelle South; Nalinie Joharatnam-Hogan; Cara Purvis; Elizabeth C James; Carlos Diaz-Montana; William J Cragg; Conor Tweed; Archie Macnair; Matthew R Sydes; Claire Snowdon; Katie Gillies; Talia Isaacs; Barbara E Bierer; Andrew J Copas Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 11.069