Cargando…

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bruhn, Hanne, Cowan, Elle-Jay, Campbell, Marion K., Constable, Lynda, Cotton, Seonaidh, Entwistle, Vikki, Humphreys, Rosemary, Innes, Karen, Jayacodi, Sandra, Knapp, Peter, South, Annabelle, Gillies, Katie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8147098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34030707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x
_version_ 1783697551578365952
author Bruhn, Hanne
Cowan, Elle-Jay
Campbell, Marion K.
Constable, Lynda
Cotton, Seonaidh
Entwistle, Vikki
Humphreys, Rosemary
Innes, Karen
Jayacodi, Sandra
Knapp, Peter
South, Annabelle
Gillies, Katie
author_facet Bruhn, Hanne
Cowan, Elle-Jay
Campbell, Marion K.
Constable, Lynda
Cotton, Seonaidh
Entwistle, Vikki
Humphreys, Rosemary
Innes, Karen
Jayacodi, Sandra
Knapp, Peter
South, Annabelle
Gillies, Katie
author_sort Bruhn, Hanne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8147098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81470982021-05-25 Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review Bruhn, Hanne Cowan, Elle-Jay Campbell, Marion K. Constable, Lynda Cotton, Seonaidh Entwistle, Vikki Humphreys, Rosemary Innes, Karen Jayacodi, Sandra Knapp, Peter South, Annabelle Gillies, Katie Trials Research BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x. BioMed Central 2021-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8147098/ /pubmed/34030707 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Bruhn, Hanne
Cowan, Elle-Jay
Campbell, Marion K.
Constable, Lynda
Cotton, Seonaidh
Entwistle, Vikki
Humphreys, Rosemary
Innes, Karen
Jayacodi, Sandra
Knapp, Peter
South, Annabelle
Gillies, Katie
Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
title Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
title_full Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
title_fullStr Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
title_short Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
title_sort providing trial results to participants in phase iii pragmatic effectiveness rcts: a scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8147098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34030707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x
work_keys_str_mv AT bruhnhanne providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT cowanellejay providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT campbellmarionk providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT constablelynda providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT cottonseonaidh providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT entwistlevikki providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT humphreysrosemary providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT inneskaren providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT jayacodisandra providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT knapppeter providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT southannabelle providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview
AT gillieskatie providingtrialresultstoparticipantsinphaseiiipragmaticeffectivenessrctsascopingreview