Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23190503›Full record

Trial reportTrials2012

The Patient Deficit Model Overturned: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011).

Clare Moynihan, Rebecca Lewis, Emma Hall, Emma Jones, Alison Birtle, Robert Huddart, SPARE Trial Management Group

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clare MoynihanInstitute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Clare.Moynihan@icr.ac.uk
Rebecca Lewis
Emma Hall
Emma Jones
Alison Birtle
Robert Huddart
SPARE Trial Management Group
Institute of Cancer Research · GBLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1491/A9895Cancer Research UK CRUK/07/011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence suggests that poor recruitment into clinical trials rests on a patient 'deficit' model - an inability to comprehend trial processes. Poor communication has also been cited as a possible barrier to recruitment. A qualitative patient interview study was included within the feasibility stage of a phase III non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (SPARE, CRUK/07/011) in muscle invasive bladder cancer. The aim was to illuminate problems in the context of randomization.

methodsThe qualitative study used a 'Framework Analysis' that included 'constant comparison' in which semi-structured interviews are transcribed, analyzed, compared and contrasted both between and within transcripts. Three researchers coded and interpreted data.

resultsTwenty-four patients agreed to enter the interview study; 10 decliners of randomization and 14 accepters, of whom 2 subsequently declined their allocated treatment.The main theme applying to the majority of the sample was confusion and ambiguity. There was little indication that confusion directly impacted on decisions to enter the SPARE trial. However, confusion did appear to impact on ethical considerations surrounding 'informed consent', as well as cause a sense of alienation between patients and health personnel.Sub-optimal communication in many guises accounted for the confusion, together with the logistical elements of a trial that involved treatment options delivered in a number of geographical locations.

conclusionsThese data highlight the difficulty of providing balanced and clear trial information within the UK health system, despite best intentions. Involvement of multiple professionals can impact on communication processes with patients who are considering participation in RCTs. Our results led us to question the 'deficit' model of patient behavior. It is suggested that health professionals might consider facilitating a context in which patients feel fully included in the trial enterprise and potentially consider alternatives to randomization where complex interventions are being tested.

trial registrationISRCTN61126465.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeModels, PsychologicalOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPatient SelectionPerceptionAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelChemotherapy, AdjuvantCommunicationConfusionCystectomyFemaleHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23190503
PMCPMC3554516
OpenAlexW2162167995

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.