Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials

被引:92
作者
Mills, Nicola [1 ]
Donovan, Jenny L. [1 ]
Wade, Julia [1 ]
Hamdy, Freddie C. [2 ]
Neal, David E. [3 ]
Lane, J. Athene [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol BS8 2PS, Avon, England
[2] Univ Oxford, John Radcliffe Hosp, Nuffield Dept Surg, Oxford OX3 9DU, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hosp, Dept Oncol, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Treatment preferences; Prostate cancer; ProtecT study; Qualitative research methods; Randomized controlled trial; Recruitment to RDTs; PATIENT PREFERENCE; CLINICAL-TRIALS; CONCEPTUAL-FRAMEWORK; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; INFORMED-CONSENT; CANCER; PARTICIPATION; INFORMATION; DECISIONS; BARRIERS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To explore how patients' treatment preferences were expressed and justified during recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and how they influenced participation and treatment decisions. Study Design and Setting: Qualitative analysis of audio recordings of recruitment appointments with 93 participants aged 51-70 years in a UK multicenter RCT of localized prostate cancer treatments. Results: Treatment preferences at recruitment were more complex and dynamic than previously assumed. Most participants expressed views about treatments early in appointments, ranging on a continuum from hesitant to well-formed opinions. As recruiters elicited men's views and provided detailed evidence-based treatment and study information, some opted for their preference, but many became uncertain and open to RCT recruitment, often accepting a different treatment from their original "preference." Discussion of treatment preferences did not act as the expected barrier to recruitment but actively enabled many to express their concerns and reach an informed decision that often included RCT participation. Conclusion: Exploring treatment preferences and providing evidence-based information can improve levels of informed decision making and facilitate RCT participation. Treatment preferences should be reconceptualized from a barrier to recruitment to an integral part of the information exchange necessary for informed decision making about treatments and RCT participation. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1127 / 1136
页数:10
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis
    Adamson, Simon J.
    Bland, J. Martin
    Hay, Elaine M.
    Johnson, Ruth E.
    Jones, Gareth T.
    Kitchener, Henry
    Moffett, Jennifer A. Klaber
    Macfarlane, Gary J.
    MacPherson, Hugh
    McLean, Sionnadh
    Nelson, Linsey
    Salisbury, Chris
    Thomas, Elaine
    Tilbrook, Helen E.
    Torgerson, David J.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 337 : 85 - 87
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2004, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects
  • [3] Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research
    Bower, P
    King, M
    Nazareth, I
    Lampe, F
    Sibbald, B
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2005, 61 (03) : 685 - 695
  • [4] You decide doctor. What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean?
    Bowling, A
    Rowe, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2005, 59 (11) : 914 - 915
  • [5] Quality improvement report - Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study
    Donovan, J
    Mills, N
    Smith, M
    Brindle, L
    Jacoby, A
    Peters, T
    Frankel, S
    Neal, D
    Hamdy, F
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2002, 325 (7367): : 766 - 769
  • [6] Donovan J, 2003, Health Technol Assess, V7, P1
  • [7] Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial
    Donovan, Jenny L.
    Lane, J. Athene
    Peters, Tim J.
    Brindle, Lucy
    Salter, Elizabeth
    Gillatt, David
    Powell, Philip
    Bollina, Prasad
    Neal, David E.
    Hamdy, Freddie C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (01) : 29 - 36
  • [8] Edwards A, 2001, QUAL HEALTH CARE, V10, pI9
  • [9] Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it? - The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial
    Featherstone, K
    Donovan, JL
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2002, 55 (05) : 709 - 719
  • [10] EQUIPOISE AND THE ETHICS OF CLINICAL RESEARCH
    FREEDMAN, B
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 317 (03) : 141 - 145