Cargando…

Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently ‘patient-centred’ (i.e.,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Planner, Claire, Bower, Peter, Donnelly, Ailsa, Gillies, K., Turner, Katrina, Young, Bridget
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31234945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y
_version_ 1783429783837736960
author Planner, Claire
Bower, Peter
Donnelly, Ailsa
Gillies, K.
Turner, Katrina
Young, Bridget
author_facet Planner, Claire
Bower, Peter
Donnelly, Ailsa
Gillies, K.
Turner, Katrina
Young, Bridget
author_sort Planner, Claire
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently ‘patient-centred’ (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial. METHODS: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others). CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6591815
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65918152019-07-08 Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials Planner, Claire Bower, Peter Donnelly, Ailsa Gillies, K. Turner, Katrina Young, Bridget Trials Review BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently ‘patient-centred’ (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial. METHODS: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others). CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6591815/ /pubmed/31234945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Planner, Claire
Bower, Peter
Donnelly, Ailsa
Gillies, K.
Turner, Katrina
Young, Bridget
Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
title Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
title_full Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
title_fullStr Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
title_short Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
title_sort trials need participants but not their feedback? a scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31234945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y
work_keys_str_mv AT plannerclaire trialsneedparticipantsbutnottheirfeedbackascopingreviewofpublishedpapersonthemeasurementofparticipantexperienceoftakingpartinclinicaltrials
AT bowerpeter trialsneedparticipantsbutnottheirfeedbackascopingreviewofpublishedpapersonthemeasurementofparticipantexperienceoftakingpartinclinicaltrials
AT donnellyailsa trialsneedparticipantsbutnottheirfeedbackascopingreviewofpublishedpapersonthemeasurementofparticipantexperienceoftakingpartinclinicaltrials
AT gilliesk trialsneedparticipantsbutnottheirfeedbackascopingreviewofpublishedpapersonthemeasurementofparticipantexperienceoftakingpartinclinicaltrials
AT turnerkatrina trialsneedparticipantsbutnottheirfeedbackascopingreviewofpublishedpapersonthemeasurementofparticipantexperienceoftakingpartinclinicaltrials
AT youngbridget trialsneedparticipantsbutnottheirfeedbackascopingreviewofpublishedpapersonthemeasurementofparticipantexperienceoftakingpartinclinicaltrials