Literature DB >> 22390557

Meeting the obligation to communicate clinical trial results to study volunteers.

Kenneth Getz1, Zachary Hallinan, Diane Simmons, Marla Jo Brickman, Zhanna Jumadilova, Lynne Pauer, Marc Wilenzick, Briggs Morrison.   

Abstract

Although the overwhelming majority of study volunteers want to receive information on the results of their participation in clinical trials, research suggests that most study volunteers never do. CISCRP - an independent nonprofit organization - in collaboration with Pfizer, conducted a study evaluating the feasibility and impact of a new process to inform study volunteers of the results of their clinical trials. Two process components were evaluated via surveys, focus groups, and interviews with volunteers and investigative site staff: a series of ongoing post-trial communications to set expectations for when trial results would be received; and routine development and delivery of the lay language trial results summary. The results of this assessment show that study volunteers and investigative site staff are extremely receptive to receiving clinical trial results and that the process of preparing and disseminating clinical trial results is feasible and generally easy to execute. The results also indicate that study volunteer comprehension of basic facts about their clinical trial pre- and post-test increased by as much as 65.6 percentage points, and suggest that this communication initiative may positively impact volunteer recruitment, retention and long-term trust in the clinical research enterprise.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22390557     DOI: 10.1586/ecp.12.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 1751-2433            Impact factor:   5.045


  8 in total

1.  Many returns: call-ins and breakfasts hand back results to study volunteers.

Authors:  Shraddha Chakradhar
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Layperson/Plain Language Summaries: Can Sponsors, CROs, and Sites Deliver in 2020?

Authors:  Charles S Wilcox; Leslie Franceschi; Adam Simmons
Journal:  Innov Clin Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-01

3.  Patient familiarity with, understanding of, and preferences for clinical trial endpoints and terminology.

Authors:  Mitchell S von Itzstein; Elda Railey; Mary L Smith; Carol B White; George W Sledge; John R Howell; Wendy Lawton; Donna M Marinucci; Nisha Unni; David E Gerber
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Returning aggregate results of clinical trials: Empirical data of patient preferences.

Authors:  Carmen E Aldinger; Jennifer Ligibel; Im Hee Shin; John W Denninger; Barbara E Bierer
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2018-12

5.  Patient and healthcare professional experiences of the Salford Lung Studies: qualitative insights for future effectiveness trials.

Authors:  Kim Gemzoe; Rebecca Crawford; Ann Caress; Sheila McCorkindale; Rebecca Conroy; Susan Collier; Lynda Doward; Renu M Vekaria; Sally Worsley; David A Leather; Elaine Irving
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 6.  Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.

Authors:  Hanne Bruhn; Elle-Jay Cowan; Marion K Campbell; Lynda Constable; Seonaidh Cotton; Vikki Entwistle; Rosemary Humphreys; Karen Innes; Sandra Jayacodi; Peter Knapp; Annabelle South; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Giving Voice to Clinical Study Participants: Development and Deployment of Sequential Patient Experience Surveys for Global Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Elizabeth Manning; Mitch Herndon; Wendy Frye; Tammy S Ice; Nadia Thyssen; Daphnee S Pushparajah; Stephen L Yates
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 1.778

8.  Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.