Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21542916›Full record

Trial reportTrials2011

Challenges of maintaining research protocol fidelity in a clinical care setting: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of patients and staff participating in a randomized controlled trial.

Julia Lawton, Nicholas Jenkins, Julie L Darbyshire, Rury R Holman, Andrew J Farmer, Nina Hallowell

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 6 institutions in 1 country.

Julia LawtonCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. J.Lawton@ed.ac.uk
Nicholas Jenkins
Julie L Darbyshire
Rury R Holman
Andrew J Farmer
Nina Hallowell
MRC Centre for Reproductive Health · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBNewcastle University · GBOxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA(1c) ≤6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.

methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.

resultsMost patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA(1c) exceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.

conclusionsTo understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical ProtocolsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMedication AdherenceResearch DesignAgedBiomarkersDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Drug Dosage CalculationsFemaleGlycated HemoglobinGuideline AdherenceHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinBiomarkersGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin AspartInsulin DetemirInsulin, Long-Acting

Identifiers

PMID21542916
PMCPMC3104488
OpenAlexW2166319114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.