The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08656-y
Nicola Farrar, Daisy Elliott, Marcus Jepson, Bridget Young, Jenny L Donovan, Carmel Conefrey, Alba X Realpe, Nicola Mills, Julia Wade, Eric Lim, Robert C Stein, Fergus J Caskey, Leila Rooshenas
{"title":"The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs.","authors":"Nicola Farrar, Daisy Elliott, Marcus Jepson, Bridget Young, Jenny L Donovan, Carmel Conefrey, Alba X Realpe, Nicola Mills, Julia Wade, Eric Lim, Robert C Stein, Fergus J Caskey, Leila Rooshenas","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08656-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the challenges of recruiting to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented, few studies have focused on the impact that the communication between recruiters and patients has on patients' participation decisions. Recruiters are thought to influence patient decision-making, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. The aim of this research was to investigate how patients interpret and use the information conveyed to them by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in trial participation decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three pragmatic UK-based multicentre RCTs were purposively sampled to provide contrasting clinical specialities. Data collection was integrated into each RCT, including audio-recordings of patient recruitment consultations and interviews with patients. Where possible, consultation audio-recordings were linked to interviews to explore how information communicated by recruiters was interpreted and used by patients during their decision-making. Data were analysed thematically, using the constant comparison approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty audio-recorded recruitment consultations were obtained across the 3 RCTs, combined with 42 interviews with patients who had consented to or declined RCT participation. Consultation and interview data were 'linked' for 17 individual patients. Throughout the patient's clinical pathway, HCPs (both those involved in the RCT and not) influenced patients' perceptions of treatment need and benefit by indicating that they preferred a particular treatment option for the patient as an individual. Whilst patients valued and were influenced by information conveyed by HCPs, they also drew on support from other sources and ultimately framed RCT participation decisions as their own. Patients' willingness to be randomised hinged on perceptions of whether they stood to benefit from a particular treatment and the availability of those treatments outside of the trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study supports the need for training and support for healthcare professionals involved throughout the clinical pathway of patients eligible for RCTs, as all healthcare professionals who interact with patients have the potential to influence their perceptions of treatments being compared in the trial.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>OPTIMA ISRCTN42400492. Prospectively registered on 26 June 2012. Prepare for Kidney Care ISRCTN17133653. Prospectively registered on 31 May 2017. MARS 2 ISRCTN44351742. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2018.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"829"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08656-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although the challenges of recruiting to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented, few studies have focused on the impact that the communication between recruiters and patients has on patients' participation decisions. Recruiters are thought to influence patient decision-making, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. The aim of this research was to investigate how patients interpret and use the information conveyed to them by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in trial participation decisions.

Methods: Three pragmatic UK-based multicentre RCTs were purposively sampled to provide contrasting clinical specialities. Data collection was integrated into each RCT, including audio-recordings of patient recruitment consultations and interviews with patients. Where possible, consultation audio-recordings were linked to interviews to explore how information communicated by recruiters was interpreted and used by patients during their decision-making. Data were analysed thematically, using the constant comparison approach.

Results: Twenty audio-recorded recruitment consultations were obtained across the 3 RCTs, combined with 42 interviews with patients who had consented to or declined RCT participation. Consultation and interview data were 'linked' for 17 individual patients. Throughout the patient's clinical pathway, HCPs (both those involved in the RCT and not) influenced patients' perceptions of treatment need and benefit by indicating that they preferred a particular treatment option for the patient as an individual. Whilst patients valued and were influenced by information conveyed by HCPs, they also drew on support from other sources and ultimately framed RCT participation decisions as their own. Patients' willingness to be randomised hinged on perceptions of whether they stood to benefit from a particular treatment and the availability of those treatments outside of the trial.

Conclusion: This study supports the need for training and support for healthcare professionals involved throughout the clinical pathway of patients eligible for RCTs, as all healthcare professionals who interact with patients have the potential to influence their perceptions of treatments being compared in the trial.

Trial registration: OPTIMA ISRCTN42400492. Prospectively registered on 26 June 2012. Prepare for Kidney Care ISRCTN17133653. Prospectively registered on 31 May 2017. MARS 2 ISRCTN44351742. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2018.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗保健专业人员的沟通在试验参与决策中的作用:对三项随机对照试验的招募咨询和患者访谈的定性调查。
背景:尽管招募随机对照试验(RCTs)的挑战有很好的文献记载,但很少有研究关注招聘人员和患者之间的沟通对患者参与决策的影响。招聘人员被认为会影响患者的决策,但其发生的机制尚不清楚。本研究的目的是调查患者如何解释和使用医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)在试验参与决策中传达给他们的信息。方法:三个实用的基于英国的多中心随机对照试验有目的地采样,以提供对比临床专业。数据收集被整合到每个随机对照试验中,包括患者招募咨询和患者访谈的录音。在可能的情况下,咨询录音与访谈联系起来,以探索招聘人员传达的信息如何被患者在决策过程中解释和使用。数据按主题进行分析,采用恒定比较方法。结果:在3项随机对照试验中获得了20个录音招募咨询,并与42名同意或拒绝参加随机对照试验的患者进行了访谈。17名患者的咨询和访谈数据被“联系”起来。在患者的整个临床过程中,HCPs(包括参与RCT的和未参与RCT的)通过表明他们更喜欢患者作为个体的特定治疗方案,影响患者对治疗需求和益处的看法。虽然患者重视并受到HCPs传达的信息的影响,但他们也从其他来源获得支持,并最终将参与随机对照试验的决定作为自己的决定。患者是否愿意接受随机分组,取决于他们是否能从某种治疗中获益,以及这些治疗在试验之外的可用性。结论:本研究支持在符合随机对照试验的患者的整个临床路径中对医疗保健专业人员进行培训和支持的必要性,因为所有与患者互动的医疗保健专业人员都有可能影响他们对试验中比较治疗的看法。试验注册:OPTIMA ISRCTN42400492。预期于2012年6月26日注册。准备肾脏护理ISRCTN17133653。预期于2017年5月31日注册。火星2号是rctn44351742。追溯注册于2018年9月5日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing vaccine clinical trials participation among elderly: challenges and strategies. How to improve the quality of euglycemic glucose clamp tests in long-acting insulin studies. Assessing the effectiveness and the feasibility of a group-based treatment for self-stigma in people with mental disorders in routine mental health services in North-East Italy: study protocol for a pragmatic multisite randomized controlled trial. Distribution of trial registry numbers within full-text of PubMed Central articles: implications for linking trials to publications and indexing trial publication types. The impact of vitamin E supplementation on sperm analysis in varicocelectomy patients: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1