Cargando…

Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The participant information sheet (PIS) provided to potential trial participants is a critical part of the process of valid consent. However, there is long-standing concern that these lengthy and complex documents are not fit-for-purpose. This has been supported recently through the appl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knapp, Peter, Raynor, David K, Silcock, Jonathan, Parkinson, Brian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21777435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-89
_version_ 1782209813558591488
author Knapp, Peter
Raynor, David K
Silcock, Jonathan
Parkinson, Brian
author_facet Knapp, Peter
Raynor, David K
Silcock, Jonathan
Parkinson, Brian
author_sort Knapp, Peter
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The participant information sheet (PIS) provided to potential trial participants is a critical part of the process of valid consent. However, there is long-standing concern that these lengthy and complex documents are not fit-for-purpose. This has been supported recently through the application of a performance-based approach to testing and improving readability called user testing. This method is now widely used to improve patient medicine leaflets - determining whether people can find and understand key facts. This study applied for the first time a controlled design to determine whether a PIS developed through user testing had improved readability over the original, using a sheet from a UK trial in acute myeloid leukemia (AML16). METHODS: In the first phase the performance of the original PIS was tested on people in the target group for the trial. There were three rounds of testing including 50 people in total - with the information revised according to its performance after each of the first 2 rounds. In the second phase, the revised PIS was compared with the original in a parallel groups randomised controlled trial (RCT) A total of 123 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to read one version of the PIS to find and show understanding of 21 key facts. RESULTS: The first, developmental phase produced a revised PIS significantly altered in its wording and layout. In the second, trial phase 66% of participants who read the revised PIS were able to show understanding of all aspects of the trial, compared with 15% of those reading the original version (Odds Ratio 11.2; Chi-square = 31.5 p < .001). When asked to state a preference, 87.1% participants chose the revised PIS (Sign test p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The original PIS for the AML16 trial may not have enabled valid consent. Combining performance-based user testing with expertise in writing for patients and information design led to a significantly improved and preferred information sheet. User testing is an efficient method for indicating strengths and weaknesses in trial information, and Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards should consider requesting such testing, to ensure that PIS are fit-for-purpose.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3152894
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31528942011-08-10 Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial Knapp, Peter Raynor, David K Silcock, Jonathan Parkinson, Brian BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The participant information sheet (PIS) provided to potential trial participants is a critical part of the process of valid consent. However, there is long-standing concern that these lengthy and complex documents are not fit-for-purpose. This has been supported recently through the application of a performance-based approach to testing and improving readability called user testing. This method is now widely used to improve patient medicine leaflets - determining whether people can find and understand key facts. This study applied for the first time a controlled design to determine whether a PIS developed through user testing had improved readability over the original, using a sheet from a UK trial in acute myeloid leukemia (AML16). METHODS: In the first phase the performance of the original PIS was tested on people in the target group for the trial. There were three rounds of testing including 50 people in total - with the information revised according to its performance after each of the first 2 rounds. In the second phase, the revised PIS was compared with the original in a parallel groups randomised controlled trial (RCT) A total of 123 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to read one version of the PIS to find and show understanding of 21 key facts. RESULTS: The first, developmental phase produced a revised PIS significantly altered in its wording and layout. In the second, trial phase 66% of participants who read the revised PIS were able to show understanding of all aspects of the trial, compared with 15% of those reading the original version (Odds Ratio 11.2; Chi-square = 31.5 p < .001). When asked to state a preference, 87.1% participants chose the revised PIS (Sign test p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The original PIS for the AML16 trial may not have enabled valid consent. Combining performance-based user testing with expertise in writing for patients and information design led to a significantly improved and preferred information sheet. User testing is an efficient method for indicating strengths and weaknesses in trial information, and Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards should consider requesting such testing, to ensure that PIS are fit-for-purpose. BioMed Central 2011-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3152894/ /pubmed/21777435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-89 Text en Copyright ©2011 Knapp et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Knapp, Peter
Raynor, David K
Silcock, Jonathan
Parkinson, Brian
Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
title Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
title_full Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
title_short Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
title_sort can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21777435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-89
work_keys_str_mv AT knapppeter canusertestingofaclinicaltrialpatientinformationsheetmakeitfitforpurposearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT raynordavidk canusertestingofaclinicaltrialpatientinformationsheetmakeitfitforpurposearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT silcockjonathan canusertestingofaclinicaltrialpatientinformationsheetmakeitfitforpurposearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT parkinsonbrian canusertestingofaclinicaltrialpatientinformationsheetmakeitfitforpurposearandomizedcontrolledtrial