ArticleTrials2014
Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation.
Article in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02332837 (Interactive Tool for Informed Consent), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Interactive Tool for Informed Consent: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Regenerative medicine: Stroke survivor and carer views and motivations towards a proposed stem cell clinical trial using placebo neurosurgery.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Feasibility, acceptability, and usability of a patient decision aid for participation in the DAHANCA 35 proton radiotherapy trial: A qualitative study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025Article
- Review
- Physician barriers and dilemmas in the execution of clinical trials impacting decision-making in the DAHANCA 35 proton therapy trial for head and neck cancer.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Assessing the readability and quality of online information on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
- Exploring the Decision-Making Process of People Living with HIV Enrolled in Antiretroviral Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Study of Decisions Guided by Trust and Emotions.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparing the effects of a patient-designed-and-informed participant information leaflet in comparison with a standard, researcher-designed information leaflet on recruitment, retention and understanding: A study-within-a-trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Examining the language demands of informed consent documents in patient recruitment to cancer trials using tools from corpus and computational linguistics.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2022Article
- An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff.Trials · 2021Article
- Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Reducing research waste by promoting informed responses to invitations to participate in clinical trials.Trials · 2019Article
- A comparative evaluation of medicine package inserts for oral antidiabetic agents in Palestine.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent is regarded as a cornerstone of ethical healthcare research and is a requirement for most clinical research studies. Guidelines suggest that prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) participants should understand a basic amount of key information about the RCTs they are being asked to enrol in in order to provide valid informed consent. This information is usually provided to potential participants in a patient information leaflet (PIL). There is evidence that some trial participants fail to understand key components of trial processes or rationale. As such, the existing approach to information provision for potential RCT participants may not be optimal. Decision aids have been used for a variety of treatment and screening decisions to improve knowledge, but focus more on overall decision quality, and may be helpful to those making decisions about participating in an RCT. We investigated the feasibility of using a tool to identify which items recommended for good quality decision making are present in UK PILs.
methodsPILs were sampled from UK registered Clinical Trials Unit websites across a range of clinical areas. The evaluation tool, which is based on standards for supporting decision making, was applied to 20 PILs. Two researchers independently rated each PIL using the tool. In addition, word count and readability were assessed.
resultsPILs scored poorly on the evaluation tool with the majority of leaflets scoring less than 50%. Specifically, presenting probabilities, clarifying and expressing values and structured guidance in deliberation and communication sub-sections scored consistently poorly. Tool score was associated with word count (r=0.802, P <0.01); there was no association between score and readability (r=-0.372, P=0.106).
conclusionsThe tool was feasible to use to evaluate PILs for UK RCTs. PILs did not meet current standards of information to support good quality decision making. Writers of information leaflets could use the evaluation tool as a framework during PIL development to help ensure that items are included which promote and support more informed decisions about trial participation. Further research is required to evaluate the inclusion of such information.
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.