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).
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial: The IP3-PROSPECT study.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- Should I stay or should I go? A qualitative study exploring participation in a urology clinical trial.International urogynecology journal · 2019Trial
- Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy.BJU international · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Patient and Caregiver Reported Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: A Scoping Review.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- RESPECT: a conversational AI system for informed consent with accuracy, safety, and stakeholder-centered evaluation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Researchers experience and views on participants' comprehension of informed consent in clinical trials in Malawi: a descriptive qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: first Polish experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- A qualitative investigation of reasoning behind decisions to decline participation in a research intervention: A study-within-a-trial.Journal of health psychology · 2023Article
- Integrating qualitative interviews in drug development and the use of qualitative evidence in product labelling and health technology assessments: a review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Review
- An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff.Trials · 2021Article
- Continuing towards optimization of bladder cancer care in Canada: Summary of the third Bladder Cancer Canada-Canadian Urological Association-Canadian Urologic Oncology Group (BCC-CUA-CUOG) bladder cancer quality of care consensus meeting.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Article
- Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.