Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23092116›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012

Internet trials: participant experiences and perspectives.

Erin Mathieu, Alexandra Barratt, Stacy M Carter, Gro Jamtvedt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pitfalls in interpretation of large registry data on hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Erin MathieuSchool of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown, Australia. e.mathieu@uws.edu.au
Alexandra Barratt
Stacy M Carter
Gro Jamtvedt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of the Internet to conduct randomised controlled trials is increasing, and provides potential to increase equity of access to medical research, increase the generalisability of trial results and decrease the costs involved in conducting large scale trials. Several studies have compared response rates, completeness of data, and reliability of surveys using the Internet and traditional methods, but very little is known about participants' attitudes towards Internet-based randomised trials or their experience of participating in an Internet-based trial.

objectiveTo obtain insights into the experiences and perspectives of participants in an Internet-based randomised controlled trial, their attitudes to the use of the Internet to conduct medical research, and their intentions regarding future participation in Internet research.

methodsAll English speaking participants in a recently completed Internet randomised controlled trial were invited to participate in an online survey.

results1246 invitations were emailed. 416 participants completed the survey between May and October 2009 (33% response rate). Reasons given for participating in the Internet RCT fell into 4 main areas: personal interest in the research question and outcome, ease of participation, an appreciation of the importance of research and altruistic reasons. Participants' comments and reflections on their experience of participating in a fully online trial were positive and less than half of participants would have participated in the trial had it been conducted using other means of data collection. However participants identified trade-offs between the benefits and downsides of participating in Internet-based trials. The main trade-off was between flexibility and convenience - a perceived benefit - and a lack connectedness and understanding - a perceived disadvantage. The other tradeoffs were in the areas of: ease or difficulty in use of the Internet; security, privacy and confidentiality issues; perceived benefits and disadvantages for researchers; technical aspects of using the Internet; and the impact of Internet data collection on information quality. Overall, more advantages were noted by participants, consistent with their preference for this mode of research over others. The majority of participants (69%) would prefer to participate in Internet-based research compared to other modes of data collection in the future.

conclusionParticipants in our survey would prefer to participate in Internet-based trials in the future compared to other ways of conducting trials. From the participants' perspective, participating in Internet-based trials involves trade-offs. The central trade-off is between flexibility and convenience - a perceived benefit - and lack of connectedness and understanding - a perceived disadvantage. Strategies to maintain the convenience of the Internet while increasing opportunities for participants to feel supported, well-informed and well-understood would seem likely to increase the acceptability of Internet-based trials.

Indexed as

InternetPatient ParticipationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitudeBiomedical ResearchData CollectionElectronic MailFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedMuscle Stretching ExercisesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23092116
PMCPMC3533967

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.