|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
open access
November 24, 2016
It is unknown whether potential research participants are aware that failure to publicly release trial data is a problem, whether the release of trial results is important to potential study participants, and whether awareness of the possibility of non-publication might influence decisions about trial participation. The primary objective of this investigation was to examine how the possibility of non-publication might influence attitudes towards trial participation.
Abstract
Objectives
Previous studies have shown that a majority of patients cite altruistic
motives, such as contributing to generalisable medical
knowledge, as factors motivating
clinical trial participation. We sought to examine the impact of making
trial results publicly
available on patients' willingness
to participate in clinical research.
Design Cross-sectional analysis using a questionnaire developed by a panel with expertise in publication bias, informed consent
and survey design.
Setting A single urban, academic emergency department (ED) in the Northeastern USA.
Participants 799 ED patients.
Outcome Measures We assessed (1) participants' attitudes towards clinical trial participation, and (2) the impact of whether study results
would eventually be made publicly available or not on willingness to participate in a trial.
Results Of
799 patients surveyed, 36% (95% CI 32% to 39%) reported that they would
generally like to participate in a trial, and
another 50% (95% CI 47% to 54%)
reported that they would consider participation depending on study
details. For the majority
of participants, the publication of
trial results was either important (36%; 95% CI 33% to 40%) or very
important (48%; 95%
CI 44% to 51%). Most (63%; 95% CI
59% to 66%) reported they would be less likely to participate in a trial
if investigators
had not publicly released results
from a prior study. Additionally, 85% (95% CI 82% to 87%) felt that it
was important or
very important to receive
information about the publication track record of sponsors and
investigators during the informed
consent process.
Conclusions
The majority of patients in this sample would consider participation in
a clinical trial. Patients value the public release
of trial results, and believe that
the informed consent process should address the possibility of
non-publication.
Strengths and limitations of this study
-
This study is unique in that it offers insight into the problem of non-publication from the perspective of research participants.
-
The study used a pilot phase, recruited patients via random time block sampling, and assessed test–retest reliability in order to limit study bias.
-
This is a single-centre study involving an urban emergency department in the USA; results may not be applicable to other patient populations.
-
The results from this cross-sectional study are subject to selection bias.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.