Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 64, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1127-1136

  Mills, Nicola ^a   Donovan, Jenny L ^a   Wade, Julia ^a   Hamdy, Freddie C ^b   Neal, David E ^c   Lane, J Athene ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Prostate cancer; ProtecT study; Qualitative research methods; Randomized controlled trial; Recruitment to RCTs; Treatment preferences

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIO RECORDING; CANCER THERAPY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

AGED; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 80052030127     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. A.M. McDonald, R.C. Knight, M.K. Campbell, V.A. Entwistle, A.M. Grant, and J.A. Cook What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies Trials 7 2006 9
2. D. Torgerson, and B. Sibbald Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ 316 1998 360
3. B. Freedman Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research N Engl J Med 317 1987 141 145 (Pubitemid 17092151)
4. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects 2004 World Medial Association General Assembly Tokyo, Japan
5. S. Ross, A. Grant, C. Counsell, W. Gillespie, I. Russell, and R. Prescott Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review J Clin Epidemiol 52 1999 1143 1156 (Pubitemid 29535414)
6. E.J. Mills, D. Seely, B. Rachlis, L. Griffith, P. Wu, and K. Wilson Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors Lancet Oncol 7 2006 141 148 (Pubitemid 43159500)
7. M. King, I. Nazareth, F. Lampe, P. Bower, M. Chandler, and M. Morou Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review JAMA 293 2005 1089 1099 (Pubitemid 40300283)
8. K. McPherson Do patients' preferences matter? BMJ 337 2008 a2034
9. Preference Collaborative Review Group Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis BMJ 337 2008 a1864
10. M. King, I. Nazareth, F. Lampe, P. Bower, M. Chandler, and M. Morou Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials Health Technol Assess 9 35 2005 1 186
11. A. Bowling, and G. Rowe "You decide doctor." What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean? J Epidemiol Community Health 59 2005 914 915 (Pubitemid 41527413)
12. G. Rowe, N. Lambert, A. Bowling, S. Ebrahim, I. Wakeling, and R. Thomson Assessing patients' preferences for treatments for angina using a modified repertory grid method Soc Sci Med 60 2005 2585 2595 (Pubitemid 40462382)
13. A.M. Stiggelbout, and J.C.J.M. de Haes Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches J Clin Oncol 19 2001 220 230 (Pubitemid 32063500)
14. J. Wade, J.L. Donovan, J.A. Lane, D.E. Neal, and F.C. Hamdy It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials Soc Sci Med 68 2009 2018 2028
15. A. Edwards, and G. Elwyn Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences Qual Health Care 10 2001 i9 i13
16. J.A. Wragg, E.J. Robinson, and R.J. Lilford Information presentation and decisions to enter clinical trials: a hypothetical trial of hormone replacement therapy Soc Sci Med 51 2000 453 462 (Pubitemid 30236204)
17. J. Donovan, F. Hamdy, D. Neal, T. Peters, S. Oliver, and L. Brindle Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study Health Technol Assess 7 14 2003 1 42
18. T.M. Marteau Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients Br J Soc Psychol 28 1989 89 94
19. P. Bower, M. King, I. Nazareth, F. Lampe, and B. Sibbald Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: conceptual framework and implications for research Soc Sci Med 61 2005 685 695 (Pubitemid 40724612)
20. J.L. Donovan, J.A. Lane, T.J. Peters, L. Brindle, E. Salter, D. Gillatt for the ProtecT Study Group Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in randomized controlled trials J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 29 36
21. M. Olschewski, and H. Scheurlen Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial Methods Inf Med 24 1985 131 134 (Pubitemid 15038269)
22. J. Donovan, N. Mills, M. Smith, L. Brindle, A. Jacoby, and T. Peters Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study BMJ 325 2002 766 770
23. D. Rose, and K. O'Reilly The ESRC review of government social classifications 1998 Office for National Statistics & Economic and Social Research Council London & Swindon, UK
24. K. Krippendorff Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology 2004 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA
25. B.G. Glaser, and A.L. Strauss The discovery of grounded theory 1967 Aldine Publishing Company Chicago, IL
26. N. Mays, and C. Pope Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research BMJ 320 2000 50 52 (Pubitemid 30173021)
27. Oxford English Dictionary Online 2010 Oxford University Press Oxford, UK Available at http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/150003?rskey=CpwFBf&result= 1&isAdvanced=false Accessed February 14, 2011
28. P. Little Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult BMJ 325 2002 766 770
29. K. McPherson, and A. Britton The impact of patient treatment preferences on the interpretation of randomised controlled trials Eur J Cancer Care 35 1999 1598 1602 (Pubitemid 29454533)
30. D.J. Torgerson, J. Klaber-Moffett, and I.T. Russell Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? J Health Serv Res Policy 1 1996 194 197
31. J. Klaber Moffett, D. Torgerson, S. Bell-Syer, D. Jackson, H. Llewlyn-Philips, and A. Farrin Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences BMJ 319 1999 279 283 (Pubitemid 29353937)
32. J.A. Klaber Moffett, D.A. Jackson, S. Richmond, S. Hahn, S. Coulton, and A. Farrin Randomised trial of brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients' preference BMJ 330 2005 75 78 (Pubitemid 40093180)
33. E. Thomas, P.R. Croft, S.M. Paterson, K. Dziedzic, and E. Hay What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain Br J Gen Pract 54 2004 93 96 (Pubitemid 38190230)
34. K. Featherstone, and J.L. Donovan "Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial Soc Sci Med 55 2002 709 719 (Pubitemid 34754288)
35. N. Mills, C. Metcalfe, C. Ronsmans, M. Davis, J.A. Lane, and J.A.C. Sterne A comparison of socio-demographic and psychological factors between patients consenting to randomisation and those selecting treatment (the ProtecT study) Contemp Clin Trials 27 2006 413 419 (Pubitemid 44192579)