Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18651981›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2008

Can patient decision aids help people make good decisions about participating in clinical trials? A study protocol.

Jamie C Brehaut, Alison Lott, Dean A Fergusson, Kaveh G Shojania, Jonathan Kimmelman, Raphael Saginur

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01964222 (A Mixed Methods Study to Reduce Disparities in Cancer Clinical Trials by Adapting a Health Literacy Intervention for Informed Consent and Comparing it to Usual Care in a Randomized Experiment), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01964222 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

A Mixed Methods Study to Reduce Disparities in Cancer Clinical Trials by Adapting a Health Literacy Intervention for Informed Consent and Comparing it to Usual Care in a Randomized Experiment

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2014 to 2015Enrolled201ConditionsCancerArmsDecision Aid (DA)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Do physicians' recommendations pull patients away from their preferred treatment options?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2012
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jamie C BrehautOttawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada. jbrehaut@ohri.ca
Alison Lott
Dean A Fergusson
Kaveh G Shojania
Jonathan Kimmelman
Raphael Saginur
Ottawa Hospital · CACanadian Institutes of Health Research · CAMcGill University · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence shows that the standard process for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials can be inadequate, with study participants frequently not understanding even basic information fundamental to giving informed consent. Patient decision aids are effective decision support tools originally designed to help patients make difficult treatment or screening decisions. We propose that incorporating decision aids into the informed consent process will improve the extent to which participants make decisions that are informed and consistent with their preferences. A mixed methods study will test this proposal.

methodsPhase one of this project will involve assessment of a stratified random sample of 50 consent documents from recently completed investigator-initiated clinical trials, according to existing standards for supporting good decision making. Phase two will involve interviews of a purposive sample of 50 trial participants (10 participants from each of five different clinical areas) about their experience of the informed consent process, and how it could be improved. In phase three, we will convert consent forms for two completed clinical trials into decision aids and pilot test these new tools using a user-centered design approach, an iterative development process commonly employed in computer usability literature. In phase four, we will conduct a pilot observational study comparing the new tools to standard consent forms, with potential recruits to two hypothetical clinical trials. Outcomes will include knowledge of key aspects of the decision, knowledge of the probabilities of different outcomes, decisional conflict, the hypothetical participation decision, and qualitative impressions of the experience. DISCUSSION: This work will provide initial evidence about whether a patient decision aid can improve the informed consent process. The larger goal of this work is to examine whether study recruitment can be improved from (barely) informed consent based on disclosure-oriented documents, towards a process of high-quality participant decision-making.

Identifiers

PMID18651981
PMCPMC2517068
OpenAlexW2171867789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.