Literature DB >> 22712887

Patient advocacy and patient centredness in participant recruitment to randomized-controlled trials: implications for informed consent.

Zelda Tomlin1, Isabel deSalis, Merran Toerien, Jenny L Donovan.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: With the routinization of evidence-based medicine and of the randomized-controlled trial (RCT), more patients are becoming 'sites of evidence production' yet, little is known about how they are recruited as participants; there is some evidence that 'substantively valid consent' is difficult to achieve.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the views and experiences of nurses recruiting patients to randomized-controlled trials and to examine the extent to which their recruitment practices were patient-centred and patient empowering.
DESIGN: Semi-structured in-depth interviews; audio recording of recruitment appointments; thematic interactional analysis (drawing on discourse and conversation analysis). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Nurses recruiting patients to five publicly funded RCTs and patients consenting to the recording of their recruitment sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The views of recruiting nurses about their recruitment role; the extent to which nurse-patient interactions were patient-centred; the nature of the nurses' interactional strategies and the nature and extent of patient participation in the discussion.
RESULTS: The nurses had a keen sense of themselves as clinicians and patient advocates and their perceptions of the trial and its interventions were inextricably linked to those of the patients. However, many of their recruitment practices made it difficult for patients to play an active and informed part in the discussion about trial participation, raising questions over the quality of consent decisions.
CONCLUSION: Nurses working in patient recruitment to RCTs need to reconcile two different worlds with different demands and ethics. Evidence production, a central task in evidence-based medicine, poses a challenge to patient-centred practice and more research and relevant training are needed.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  informed consent; patient advocacy; patient recruitment; professional-patient; randomized controlled trial; relations; shared decision-making

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22712887      PMCID: PMC5060918          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00792.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  54 in total

1.  Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice.

Authors:  Richard Ashcroft
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.898

Review 2.  A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ned S Abraham; Jane M Young; Michael J Solomon
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics.

Authors:  Pascal Borry; Paul Schotsmans; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.898

Review 4.  Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: conceptual framework and implications for research.

Authors:  Peter Bower; Michael King; Irwin Nazareth; Fiona Lampe; Bonnie Sibbald
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?

Authors:  V A Jenkins; L J Fallowfield; A Souhami; M Sawtell
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

7.  Equipoise in clinical nursing research.

Authors:  Lynn McCleary
Journal:  Can J Nurs Res       Date:  2002-10

Review 8.  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.

Authors:  Jenny Donovan; Nicola Mills; Monica Smith; Lucy Brindle; Ann Jacoby; Tim Peters; Stephen Frankel; David Neal; Freddie Hamdy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-05

9.  Shared decision making: trade-offs between narrower and broader conceptions.

Authors:  Alan Cribb; Vikki A Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 10.  Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-10-31
View more
  11 in total

1.  Emesis in pregnancy - a qualitative study on trial recruitment failure from the EMPOWER internal pilot.

Authors:  Mabel Leng Sim Lie; Catherine McParlin; Elaine McColl; Ruth H Graham; Stephen C Robson
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2022-07-14

2.  Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Nicola Farrar; Daisy Elliott; Catherine Houghton; Marcus Jepson; Nicola Mills; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Lucy Plumb; Julia Wade; Bridget Young; Jenny L Donovan; Leila Rooshenas
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 2.728

3.  An international survey of physicians regarding clinical trials: a comparison between Kyoto University Hospital and Seoul National University Hospital.

Authors:  Toshiko Ito-Ihara; Jeong-Hwa Hong; Ock-Joo Kim; Eriko Sumi; Soo-Youn Kim; Shiro Tanaka; Keiichi Narita; Taichi Hatta; Eun-Kyung Choi; Kyu-Jin Choi; Takuya Miyagawa; Manabu Minami; Toshinori Murayama; Masayuki Yokode
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Jenny L Donovan; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Isabel de Salis; Merran Toerien
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients' treatment preferences.

Authors:  Nicola Mills; Jane M Blazeby; Freddie C Hamdy; David E Neal; Bruce Campbell; Caroline Wilson; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Jenny L Donovan
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Consent revisited: the impact of return of results on participants' views and expectations about trial participation.

Authors:  Carolyn Tarrant; Clare Jackson; Mary Dixon-Woods; Sarah McNicol; Sara Kenyon; Natalie Armstrong
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  A qualitative study examining healthcare managers and providers' perspectives on participating in primary care implementation research.

Authors:  Lisa A Wozniak; Allison Soprovich; Sandra Rees; Steven T Johnson; Sumit R Majumdar; Jeffrey A Johnson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  "Telling" and assent: Parents' attitudes towards children's participation in a birth cohort study.

Authors:  Izen Ri; Eiko Suda; Zentaro Yamagata; Hiroshi Nitta; Kaori Muto
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Should I stay or should I go? A qualitative study exploring participation in a urology clinical trial.

Authors:  Mabel Leng Sim Lie; Jan Lecouturier; Christopher Harding
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jenny L Donovan; Isabel de Salis; Merran Toerien; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Freddie C Hamdy; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 6.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.