Literature DB >> 32014881

Dissemination of trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic clinical trials: an audit of trial investigators intentions.

M Zulfiqar Raza1, Hanne Bruhn1, Katie Gillies2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of Phase III clinical trials given a favourable opinion by a research ethics committee in the UK that provided trial results to those who participated.
DESIGN: Audit of records.
SETTING: Phase III clinical trials registered on the UK's research permissions system (Integrated Research Application System) between the 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of trial investigators that intended to provide results to trial participants compared against what trials reported to ethics committees at the end of study.
RESULTS: Out of 1404 Phase III trials, 87.7% (n=1231) trials stated they intended to disseminate results to participants while 12.3% (n=173) trials stated they would not. Out of these 1231 trials, 18.8% (n=231) trials intended to actively communicate trial results or a means of accessing results to their participants, a further 80.5% (n=991) reported passive intention to disseminate and for the remainder (n=9) the process was unclear. Of the 370 End of Study reports (30% of all included studies) that could be accessed 10 (2.7%) explicitly mentioned activities related to dissemination of findings to participants with the majority (74.9%) having no mention and a further 22.4% of reports not being accessible. Of the 10 which did report dissemination of results to participants the majority (n=6) were through a lay summary or letter.
CONCLUSIONS: Reported intention to disseminate results to trial participants among trial investigators is high, however, reporting of feedback methods is lacking. In addition, mechanisms to ensure intentions to disseminate trial results are translated into actual behaviour need to be put in place to ensure those who participate in trials have the opportunity to find out about the results. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical audit; clinical trials; medical ethics

Year:  2020        PMID: 32014881      PMCID: PMC7045144          DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035730

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  7 in total

Review 1.  How big is the physical activity intention-behaviour gap? A meta-analysis using the action control framework.

Authors:  Ryan E Rhodes; Gert-Jan de Bruijn
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2013-05

2.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  Public involvement could usefully inform ethical review, but rarely does: what are the implications?

Authors:  Kristina Staley; Jim Elliott
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2017-12-11

5.  Registration audit of clinical trials given a favourable opinion by UK research ethics committees.

Authors:  Carla Denneny; Sue Bourne; Simon E Kolstoe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Amy Price; Mario Malički; Tessa Richards; Mike Clarke
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Health research participants are not receiving research results: a collaborative solution is needed.

Authors:  Christopher R Long; M Kathryn Stewart; Pearl A McElfish
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 2.279

  7 in total
  6 in total

1.  Information about dissemination of trial results in patient information leaflets for clinicals trials in the UK and Ireland: The what and the when.

Authors:  Matilda Bjorklund; Frances Shiely; Katie Gillies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  What, how, when and who of trial results summaries for trial participants: stakeholder-informed guidance from the RECAP project.

Authors:  Hanne Bruhn; Marion Campbell; Vikki Entwistle; Rosemary Humphreys; Sandra Jayacodi; Peter Knapp; Juliet Tizzard; Katie Gillies
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Jessica Wood; Seonaidh C Cotton; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 3.318

4.  Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials: a mixed methods theory-informed survey of trialists' current practices, barriers and facilitators.

Authors:  Beatriz Goulao; Camille Poisson; Katie Gillies
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  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

6.  Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials (PoINT): exploring patient and public partners experiences and identifying stakeholder priorities.

Authors:  Beatriz Goulao; Hanne Bruhn; Marion Campbell; Craig Ramsay; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.