Alan Quirk1, Virginia MacNeil2, Ranjita Dhital3, Cate Whittlesea4, Ian Norman5, Jim McCambridge6. 1. Centre for Quality Improvement, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, UK. Electronic address: aquirk@rcpsych.ac.uk. 2. Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 3. National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, UK. 4. School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, UK. 5. Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kings College London, UK. 6. Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: This qualitative process study, nested within a randomised controlled trial evaluating community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention delivery, aims to explore participants' engagement with the trial, so as to identify whether research participation effects may explain why the brief intervention was not found to be effective. METHOD: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 randomly selected participants approximately one month after the end of the trial. Semi structured Interviews were conducted by telephone in which participants were asked to give a chronological account of their trial participation, leading to a discussion of possible impacts. These were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: A range of motivations for taking part in the trial were identified, including pharmacy visitors wanting to obtain an assessment of their drinking. Participants in both arms of the trial spoke of the potent effect that screening had on them. All participants were exposed to discussions about alcohol with empathic pharmacists and, as this is an integral intervention component, this constitutes contamination. Participants' pre-existing ideas about the nature of alcohol problems had an important bearing on how relevant they thought the intervention was to them. CONCLUSION: A detailed appreciation of participant engagement with the trial can provide a strong basis for interpretation of trial outcome data, and in this instance does help explain the null finding. Other findings also indicate the need for dedicated studies of public understanding of the nature of alcohol problems, and their implications for receptivity to brief interventions.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: This qualitative process study, nested within a randomised controlled trial evaluating community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention delivery, aims to explore participants' engagement with the trial, so as to identify whether research participation effects may explain why the brief intervention was not found to be effective. METHOD: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 randomly selected participants approximately one month after the end of the trial. Semi structured Interviews were conducted by telephone in which participants were asked to give a chronological account of their trial participation, leading to a discussion of possible impacts. These were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: A range of motivations for taking part in the trial were identified, including pharmacy visitors wanting to obtain an assessment of their drinking. Participants in both arms of the trial spoke of the potent effect that screening had on them. All participants were exposed to discussions about alcohol with empathic pharmacists and, as this is an integral intervention component, this constitutes contamination. Participants' pre-existing ideas about the nature of alcohol problems had an important bearing on how relevant they thought the intervention was to them. CONCLUSION: A detailed appreciation of participant engagement with the trial can provide a strong basis for interpretation of trial outcome data, and in this instance does help explain the null finding. Other findings also indicate the need for dedicated studies of public understanding of the nature of alcohol problems, and their implications for receptivity to brief interventions.
Authors: Liz Steed; Ratna Sohanpal; Adam Todd; Vichithranie W Madurasinghe; Carol Rivas; Elizabeth A Edwards; Carolyn D Summerbell; Stephanie Jc Taylor; R T Walton Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-12-06
Authors: Diana Huis In 't Veld; Chellafe Ensoy-Musoro; Supa Pengpid; Karl Peltzer; Robert Colebunders Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mary Madden; Steph Morris; Margaret Ogden; David Lewis; Duncan Stewart; Jim McCambridge Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Jane M Fletcher; Terry Saunders-Smith; Braden J Manns; Ross Tsuyuki; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Marcello Tonelli; David J T Campbell Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Duncan Stewart; Anne van Dongen; Michelle Watson; Laura Mandefield; Karl Atkin; Ranjita Dhital; Brent Foster; Brendan Gough; Catherine Hewitt; Mary Madden; Stephanie Morris; Ronan O'Carroll; Margaret Ogden; Steve Parrott; Judith Watson; Sue White; Cate Whittlesea; Jim McCambridge Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 2.655