Patients' Attitudes and Preferences About Participation and Recruitment Strategies in Clinical Trials

Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Impact Factor: 5.81). 04/2009; 84(3):243-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)61141-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess attitudes of patients about participation in clinical trials.
This is a self-report survey of 400 patients who underwent general medical evaluations between September and November 2006 at a tertiary care academic medical center in Rochester, MN. We measured knowledge of access to clinical trials, attitudes toward participation, recruitment preferences, and beliefs about research integrity.
Of 485 consecutive patients, 400 (82%) completed the survey. Previous participation in clinical trials was reported by 112 patients (28%). Most were unaware of online information about clinical trials (330 [82%]), were satisfied with their current knowledge (233 [58%]), expected their treating physician to inform them about current trials (304 [76%]), and showed equal interest in participating in conventional or complementary intervention trials (174 [44%]). Of the 400 respondents, 321 (80%) found it appropriate to be contacted by mail and 253 (63%) by telephone regarding study participation. Most patients (364 [91%]) wanted to be informed about research findings or else would not participate in future clinical trials (272 [68%]). The most frequently expected compensation was free parking (234 [58%]). Most thought that their safety (373 [93%]) and privacy (376 [94%]) would be guarded.
Patients are interested in participating in clinical trials but commonly lack adequate information. If patients received more information (through their treating physicians), enrollment might improve. This single-site study has limited generalizability. Future studies involving a diverse group of patients from a broader geographic distribution will help provide more definitive results.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background This study was conducted to investigate awareness of clinical trials (CTs) including perceptions of favorable feelings about, necessity for, and safety of CTs, the ultimate beneficiary of CTs and the factors associated with willingness to participate in CTs among the general population in South Korea.MethodsA cross sectional survey study was conducted in a randomly selected national sample of 1,515 Korean.ResultsPerception toward CTs was measured using a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Respondents readily understood the necessity for CTs (M¿=¿7.27, SD¿=¿2.15); had moderately favorable feelings (M¿=¿5.32, SD¿=¿2.31) toward CTs and felt that these CTs were moderately safe (M¿=¿4.71, SD¿=¿1.90). Twenty-five percent of the respondents answered that they would be willing to participate in a CT in the future. Perception of the ultimate benefits of CTs, awareness, favorable feelings, safety, and necessity regarding CTs were identified as significant predictors of willingness to participate in CTs.Conclusion An awareness of CTs and the perceptions toward CTs were associated with general public willingness to participate in a CT. Findings from this study can be used in planning outreach and recruitment strategies, and to understand the predictors of CT participation.
    BMC Public Health 01/2015; 15(1):10. DOI:10.1186/s12889-014-1339-0 · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Functional Strength Training (FST) could enhance recovery late after stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a subsequent fully powered, randomized controlled trial.
    Trials 08/2014; 15(1):322. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-15-322 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recruitment rates in multi-centre randomised trials often fall below target recruitment rates, causing problems for study outcomes. The Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) Programme, established by the All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research in collaboration with the Medical Research Council Network of Hubs in the United Kingdom and others, is developing methods for evaluating aspects of trial methodology through the conduct of research within research. A recently published design for a SWAT-1 provides a protocol for evaluating the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator on recruitment in multi-centre trials. Using the SWAT-1 design, the effect of a site visit, with the sole purpose of discussing trial recruitment, on recruitment rates in a large multicentre trial in the Republic of Ireland was evaluated. A controlled before and after intervention comparison was used, where the date of the site visit provides the time point for the intervention, and for the comparison to control sites. Site A received the intervention. Site B and Site C acted as the controls. Z-scores for proportions were calculated to determine within site recruitment differences. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine between site recruitment differences. Recruitment rates were increased in Site A post-intervention (17% and 14% percentage point increases at 1 and 3 months, respectively). No differences in recruitment occurred in Site B or in Site C. Comparing between site differences, at 3 months post-intervention, a statistically significant difference was detected in favour of higher recruitment in Site A (34% versus 25%; odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.26). This is the first reported example of a study in the SWAT programme.. It provides evidence that a site visit, combined with a scheduled meeting, increases recruitment in a clinical trial. Using this example, other researchers might be encouraged to consider conducting a similar study, allowing the findings of future SWAT-1s to be compared and combined, so that higher level evidence on the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator can be obtained. ISRCTN-96340041 ( ); date of registration: 25 March 2008.
    Trials 05/2015; 16(1):211. DOI:10.1186/s13063-015-0732-z · 2.12 Impact Factor


Available from