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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |