25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Who wants to join preventive trials? – Experience from the Estonian Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy Trial [ISRCTN35338757]

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The interest of patients in participating in randomized clinical trials involving treatments has been widely studied, but there has been much less research on interest in preventive trials. The objective of this study was to find out how many women would be interested in a trial involving postmenopausal hormone therapy (PHT) and how the women's background characteristics and opinions correlated to their interest.

          Methods

          The data come from recruitment questionnaires (n = 2000) sent to women in Estonia in 1998. A random sample of women aged 45 to 64 was drawn from the Population Registry. The trial is a two-group randomized trial comparing estrogen-progestogen therapy with placebo or no drugs. A brief description of the study was attached to the questionnaires. Women were not told at this stage of the recruitment which group they would be assigned to, however, they were told of the chance to receive either hormone, placebo or no treatment.

          Results

          After two reminders, 1312 women (66%) responded. Eleven percent of the women approached (17% of the respondents) were interested in joining the trial, and 8% wanted more information before deciding. When the 225 women who stated clearly that they were interested in joining and the 553 women who said they were not interested were compared, it was found that interested women were younger and, adjusting for age, that more had given birth; in other respects, the sociodemographic characteristics and health habits of the interested women were similar to those of the non-interested women. The interested women had made more use of more health services, calcium preparations and PHT, they were more often overweight, and more had chronic diseases and reported symptoms. Interested women's opinions on the menopause were more negative, and they favoured PHT more than the non-interested women.

          Conclusion

          Unlike the situation described in previous reports on preventive trials, in this case Estonian women interested in participating in a PHT trial were not healthier than other women. This suggests that trials involving PHT are more similar to treatment trials than to preventive trials. In a randomized controlled trial, more information should be obtained from those women who decline to participate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

          A systematic review of three bibliographic databases from 1986 to 1996 identified 78 papers reporting barriers to recruitment of clinicians and patients to randomised controlled trials. Clinician barriers included: time constraints, lack of staff and training, worry about the impact on the doctor-patient relationship, concern for patients, loss of professional autonomy, difficulty with the consent procedure, lack of rewards and recognition, and an insufficiently interesting question. Patient barriers included: additional demands of the trial, patient preferences, worry caused by uncertainty, and concerns about information and consent. To overcome barriers to clinician recruitment, the trial should address an important research question and the protocol and data collection should be as straightforward as possible. The demands on clinicians and patients should be kept to a minimum. Dedicated research staff may be required to support clinical staff and patients. The recruitment aspects of a randomised controlled trial should be carefully planned and piloted. Further work is needed to quantify the extent of problems associated with clinician and patient participation, and proper evaluation is required of strategies to overcome barriers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial.

            Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted by the scientific community as the most rigorous way of evaluating interventions in health care. Although their central feature, random allocation of treatment, is generally seen as methodologically appropriate, its application has caused much debate amongst health professionals and ethicists. This paper describes the views of parents who consented that their critically ill newborn baby should be enrolled in a neonatal trial. In-depth interviews were used to determine their response to the trial and randomization. The nature of the trial was often poorly understood. The random basis of the allocation of treatment and the rationale behind this approach were also problematic issues. Some parents did not perceive a random element in the process at all. These findings advance understanding of the perceptions of trial participants and raise important issues for those concerned with RCTs. Greater understanding of participants' views provides the potential to improve the management of future trials and so the experience of those agreeing to take part.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial.

              To explore trial participants' understandings of randomisation. In this exploratory study, which used qualitative research methods, in-depth, semistructured interviews were carried out with 20 participants from the CLasP randomised controlled trial. Interviews were recorded on audio tape and fully transcribed. Data were analysed by comparing transcripts and describing emergent themes, using a grounded theory approach. The CLasP study comprises three linked multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of laser therapy, standard surgery, and conservative management for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention, or both, related to benign prostatic disease. 20 participants in the CLasP study were interviewed. Sampling was purposeful: men were included from each of the treatment arms, the two major centres, and at different points in the trial. Interviews used a checklist of topics to encourage participants to describe their experiences. Narratives concerning randomisation were compared to identify common themes, retaining the context of the discussion to allow detailed interpretation. Most participants recalled and described aspects of randomisation, such as the involvement of chance, comparison, and concealed allocation. Many found the concept of randomisation difficult, however, and developed alternative lay explanations to make sense of their experiences. Inaccurate patient information and lay interpretations of common trial terms caused confusion. The provision of clear and accurate patient information is important, but this alone will not ensure consistent interpretation of concepts such as randomisation. Patients may need to discuss the purposes of randomisation in order to understand them fully enough to give truly informed consent.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                2005
                12 April 2005
                : 5
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, STAKES, Health and Social Services, PO Box 220, FI-00531 Helsinki, Finland
                [2 ]School of Public Health, University of Tampere, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland
                [3 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistcs, National Institute for Health Development, Hiiu 42, 11619 Tallinn, Estonia
                [4 ]Estonian Center of Excellence in Behavioral and Health Sciences, Tartu-Tallinn, Estonia
                Article
                1471-2288-5-12
                10.1186/1471-2288-5-12
                1090584
                15826311
                35a109ae-94e8-41ba-8690-4398165e8d2b
                Copyright © 2005 Hovi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                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.

                History
                : 13 September 2004
                : 12 April 2005
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article