Relative importance of informational items in participant information leaflets for trials: a Q-methodology approach

Author:

Innes Karen,Cotton Seonaidh,Campbell Marion K,Elliott Jim,Gillies Katie

Abstract

ObjectivesTo identify which information items potential participants and research nurses rank as the most important, and the reasons for this, when considering participation in a randomised controlled trial.DesignQ-methodology approach alongside a think-aloud process. Using a vignette outlining a hypothetical trial, participants were asked to rank statements about informational items usually included in a participant information leaflet (PIL) on a Q-grid, while undertaking a real-time think-aloud process to elicit the underpinning decision processes. Analysis of quantitative data was conducted using descriptive statistics and qualitative data was coded using content analysis.Participants20 participants (10 potential trial participants and 10 research nurses).SettingUK-based participants.ResultsTen research nurses and 10 potential trial participants provided data for the study. Both stakeholder groups ranked similar statements in their top three most important statements, with ‘What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part?’ featuring in both. However, considerable variability existed between the groups with regard to their ranking of statements of least importance. Participants identified that sufficient information to make a decision was secured using around 14 items. Participants also identified other items of importance not routinely included in PILs.ConclusionsThis study has provided a unique insight into how and why different trial stakeholder groups rank informational items currently contained within PILs. These results have implications for those developing future PILs and those who develop guidance on their content; PILs should focus most on the information items that potential trial participants want and need to make an informed choice about trial participation.

Funder

Chief Scientist Office

Medical Research Council

Health Technology Assessment Programme

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference28 articles.

1. Pocock SJ . Clinical trials - a practical approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1983.

2. NHS Choices. Clinical Trials and medical research - Ethics committees. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/clincial-trials/Pages/Ethicscommittees.aspx (accessed 09 Mar 2018).

3. WMA - World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ (accessed 09 Mar 2018).

4. EU directive 2011/20/EC. 2004 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2014_536/reg_2014_536_en.pdf (accessed 09 Mar 2018).

5. NHS. Informing participants and seeking consent. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/informing-participants-and-seeking-consent/ (accessed 09 Mar 2018).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3