Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21477994›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2011

Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials.

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

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05547165 (Percutaneous Intervention Versus Observational Trial of Arterial Ductus in Low Weight Infants), which is not on this map. Cited by 76 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05547165 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Percutaneous Intervention Versus Observational Trial of Arterial Ductus in Low Weight Infants

TypeinterventionalSponsorNationwide Children's HospitalRan2023 to 2026Enrolled240ConditionsDuctus Arteriosus, PatentArmsPercutaneous Patent Ductus Arteriosus Closure (PPC), Responsive Management Intervention, Echocardiogram, cardiac
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Nicola MillsSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK. nicola.mills@bristol.ac.uk
Jenny L Donovan
Julia Wade
Freddie C Hamdy
David E Neal
J Athene Lane

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council G0900871Medical Research Council G106/1092Medical Research Council MC_U145079312
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore how patients' treatment preferences were expressed and justified during recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and how they influenced participation and treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingQualitative analysis of audio recordings of recruitment appointments with 93 participants aged 51-70 years in a UK multicenter RCT of localized prostate cancer treatments.

resultsTreatment preferences at recruitment were more complex and dynamic than previously assumed. Most participants expressed views about treatments early in appointments, ranging on a continuum from hesitant to well-formed opinions. As recruiters elicited men's views and provided detailed evidence-based treatment and study information, some opted for their preference, but many became uncertain and open to RCT recruitment, often accepting a different treatment from their original "preference." Discussion of treatment preferences did not act as the expected barrier to recruitment but actively enabled many to express their concerns and reach an informed decision that often included RCT participation.

conclusionExploring treatment preferences and providing evidence-based information can improve levels of informed decision making and facilitate RCT participation. Treatment preferences should be reconceptualized from a barrier to recruitment to an integral part of the information exchange necessary for informed decision making about treatments and RCT participation.

Indexed as

Patient PreferencePatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID21477994
PMCPMC3167372

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.