Women’s views and experiences of a patient preference trial in surgery: a qualitative study of the CARPET1 trial

Author:

Jackson Clare J1,Dixon-Woods Mary2,Eborall Helen1,Kenyon Sara3,Toozs-Hobson Philip4,Tincello Douglas G5

Affiliation:

1. Social Science Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

2. Social Science Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK,

3. School of Health and Population Sciences, Edgbaston Campus, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

4. Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK

5. Reproductive Science Section, Department of Cancer Studies & Molecular Medicine, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Abstract

Background The randomized controlled trial (RCT) has a well-established role in assessing drug therapies, but its adoption in developing surgical interventions has been slow. Patients’ perspectives on surgical RCTs, especially those including a patient preference option, have received little attention. Purpose To characterize participants’ experiences and views of recruitment to a pilot trial (CARPET1) of two surgical treatments for urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse that included a patient preference option. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 16 women who participated in the CARPET1 trial. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Main outcome measures Women’s experiences of taking part in a patient preference trial. Results Women’s motives for participating in CARPET1 focused on the possibility of additional care and, as a secondary motive, the wish to help with research. Most participants expressed a treatment preference rather than accepting randomization. Most were pleased with the information they received, and acknowledged the principle of equipoise, but there was substantial variability in their understanding of aspects of the trial, including randomization. Randomization was considered by women to be appropriate only when both treatments were equally suitable and they had no strong preference. Women suggested that the main influence on their willingness to be randomized was the recruiting clinician’s opinion. Importantly, despite the recruiting clinicians being heavily involved in conception of CARPET1, they did not seem to be in equipoise at the level of the individual patient. Limitations This being a small study it was not possible to interview women who declined trial participation or to observe consultations between surgeons and patients. Conclusions CARPET1 appears to have been more a surgeon preference trial than a patient preference trial. Substantial challenges may remain in conducting RCTs in surgery, particularly where surgeons have preferences about what they perceive as the best option for an individual patient. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 696—704. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

Cited by 25 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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