Trial reportBMJ open2014
Clinical trial participants' experiences of completing questionnaires: a qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A community-based health social partnership programme to enhance self-care management amongst older adults: a cluster randomised controlled hybrid implementation-effectiveness study.Age and ageing · 2025Trial
- Surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder: the UK FROST three-arm RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- What did trial participants in REMAP-CAP Japan experience during the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Expansion of attentional scope modulates postural control, motor strategies, and attentional network connectivity in healthy adults: a proof-of-concept mixed-methods study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Investigating people's attitudes towards participating in longitudinal health research: an intersectionality-informed perspective.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Article
- Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Review
- How Do Patients with Chronic Neck Pain Experience the Effects of Qigong and Exercise Therapy? A Qualitative Interview Study.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo improve clinical study developments for elderly populations, we aim to understand how they transfer their experiences into validated, standardised self-completed study measurement instruments. We analysed how women (mean 78±8 years of age) participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) cognised study instruments used to evaluate outcomes of the intervention.
settingThe interview study was nested in an RCT on chronic neck pain using common measurement instruments situated in an elderly community in Berlin, Germany, which comprised of units for independent and assisted-living options.
participantsThe sample (n=20 women) was selected from the RCT sample (n=117, 95% women, mean age 76 (SD±8) years). Interview participants were selected using a purposive sampling list based on the RCT outcomes. OUTCOMES: We asked participants about their experiences completing the RCT questionnaires. Interviews were analysed thematically, then compared with the questionnaires.
resultsInterviewees had difficulties in translating complex experiences into a single value on a scale and understanding the relationship of the questionnaires to study aims. Interviewees considered important for the trial that their actual experiences were understood by trial organisers. This information was not transferrable by means of the questionnaires. To rectify these difficulties, interviewees used strategies such as adding notes, adding response categories or skipping an item.
conclusionsElderly interview participants understood the importance of completing questionnaires for trial success. This led to strategies of completing the questionnaires that resulted in 'missing' or ambiguous data. To improve data collection in elderly populations, educational materials addressing the differential logics should be developed and tested. Pilot testing validated instruments using cognitive interviews may be particularly important in such populations. Finally, when the target of an intervention is a subjective experience, it seems important to create a method by which participants can convey their personal experiences. These could be nested qualitative studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN77108101807.
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.