Women's experiences of participating in the Magpie Trial: a postal survey in the United Kingdom.
ABSTRACT The Magpie Trial compared magnesium sulfate with placebo for women with preeclampsia. The objective of this study was to explore women's views and experiences of participating in the Magpie Trial in the United Kingdom.
Postal questionnaires were sent to 771 women participants in the Magpie Trial to assess long-term health of UK women and children. The questionnaire included three questions exploring women's experience of participating in the trial: (a) If time suddenly went backward, and you had to do it all over again, would you agree to participate in the Magpie Trial? (b) Please tell us if there was anything about the Magpie Trial that you think could have been done better; and (c) Please tell us if there was anything about the Magpie Trial, or your experience of joining the trial, that you think was particularly good.
Overall, 619 of the 771 women who were sent questionnaires returned them. In response to the three questions: (a) 58 percent (356) of women responded "definitely yes," 27 percent (169) "probably yes," 4 percent (23) "probably no," 5 percent (33) "definitely no," and 5 percent (34) "not sure." No clear evidence was shown of a relationship with allocated treatment, although women who responded "probably or definitely no" were more likely to have had side effects from trial treatment. (b) Although 44 percent of women stated that nothing could have been done better, free text suggestions related to content of recruitment information, and its timing, and wanting to know treatment allocation and trial results. c) Women were generally extremely positive about being followed up and receiving trial results.
Women were largely positive about participation in the trial and its follow-up, but still reported ways they believed the study could have been improved, such as more information, given earlier, which also has implications for clinical care.
- SourceAvailable from: Beth Murray-Davis[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The international, multicenter External Cephalic Version 2 (ECV2) Trial compared early external cephalic version at 34(0/7) to 35(6/7) weeks with that at greater than 37 weeks. A total of 1,543 women were randomized from 68 centers in 21 countries. The goal of this component of the trial was to understand women's views about participation in a research trial and timing of external cephalic version. A postpartum questionnaire was completed containing a 5-point Likert scale examining contact and availability of staff, choice of timing of external cephalic version, preference of randomization, convenience of participating, and overall satisfaction. Participants also completed two open-ended questions related to timing of external cephalic version and satisfaction with the trial. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyze data. A total of 1,458 women completed the questionnaire, of whom 86 percent said "yes"-they would participate in the trial again. Themes influencing decisions about participating were perceptions of the external cephalic version experience, preferred mode of delivery, preferred timing of external cephalic version, and perceptions of the effectiveness of external cephalic version and of the trial environment. Many participants preferred the early timing of the procedure offered through the trial because of perceived advantages of a smaller baby being easier to turn and the opportunity for repeat procedures. Women were positive about their participation in the trial. Early external cephalic version was preferred over the traditional timing as it was perceived to afford both physiologic and practical advantages.Birth 03/2012; 39(1):30-8. · 2.93 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Recruitment to randomized controlled trials is known to be challenging. It is important to understand and identify predictors of good or poor accrual to a clinical trial so that appropriate strategies can be put in place to overcome these problems and facilitate successful trial completion. We have developed a survey tool to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams regarding facilitators and barriers to recruitment in a clinical trial and describe herein the method of developing the questionnaire. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify studies that have explored facilitators and barriers to recruitment, and a list of potential factors affecting recruitment to a clinical trial was generated. These factors were categorized in terms relating to the (i) trial, (ii) site, (iii) patient, (iv) clinical team, (v) information and consent and (vi) study team. A list was provided for responders to grade these factors as weak, intermediate or strong facilitators or barriers to recruitment. RESULTS: A web-based survey questionnaire was developed. This survey was designed to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams with regard to the perceived facilitators and barriers to recruitment, to identify strategies applied to overcome these problems, and to obtain suggestions for change in the organization of future trials. The survey tool can be used to assess the recruitment experience of clinical teams in a single/multicenter trial in any clinical setting or speciality involving adults or children either in an ongoing trial or at trial completion. The questionnaire is short, easy to administer and to complete, with an estimated completion time of 11 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented a robust methodology for developing this survey tool that provides an evidence-based list of potential factors that can affect recruitment to a clinical trial. We recommend that all clinical trialists should consider using this tool with appropriate trial-specific adaptations to monitor and improve recruitment performance in an ongoing trial or conduct the survey at trial completion to gather information on facilitators and barriers to recruitment that can form the basis of interventions and strategies to improve recruitment to future clinical trials.Trials 11/2012; 13(1):218. · 2.21 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective to gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of pregnant women diagnosed antenatally with fetal lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO) participating in an interventional fetal medicine randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using Riessman's narrative analysis. Setting fetal medicine clinics within the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). Participants five pregnant women who were recruited as part of an RCT and two additional women who were recruited after the trial was terminated before completion. Findings three themes were identified and form the basis of this article: the use of technology in pregnancy, the loss of a normal pregnancy, and decision making in uncertainty. Implications and conclusions undertaking qualitative research within an RCT can illuminate the experience of the condition being studied. Women's experience of a pregnancy where LUTO was diagnosed in the fetus entailed an emotional journey following the visualisation of the abnormality through the use of routine ultrasound screening. Women tried to make sense of the diagnosis in order to make the best, albeit less than ideal, decisions for themselves, their baby, and their family. Midwives are in a good position to support women through the emotional distress of diagnosis and to help them negotiate the uncertain terrain in which they make decisions.Midwifery 01/2013; · 1.12 Impact Factor