Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25566971›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Uncovering the emotional aspects of working on a clinical trial: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of staff involved in a type 1 diabetes trial.

Julia Lawton, Jackie Kirkham, David White, David Rankin, Cindy Cooper, Simon Heller

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Patient involvement in qualitative data analysis in a trial of a patient-centred intervention: Reconciling lay knowledge and scientific method.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia LawtonCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. J.Lawton@ed.ac.uk.
Jackie Kirkham
David White
David Rankin
Cindy Cooper
Simon Heller
University of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Department of Health 08/107/01PHS HHS 08/107/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe perspectives and experiences of trial staff are increasingly being investigated as these can be used to improve recruitment, adherence to trial protocols and support given to future staff. We interviewed staff working on a type 1 diabetes trial in order to aid interpretation of trial findings, inform recommendations for the rollout of the treatments investigated and provide recommendations for the conduct of future trials. However, our interviews uncovered aspects of trial work erstwhile unrecognised or underreported in the trials literature, and it is these which form the focus of this paper.

methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with (n = 18) staff, recruited from seven centres, who were involved in recruitment and trial delivery. Data were analysed thematically.

resultsAlongside logistical and practical issues which made trial work challenging, staff often talked spontaneously and at length about how trial work had affected them emotionally. Staff not only described the emotional stresses arising from having to meet recruitment targets and from balancing research roles with clinical responsibilities, they also discussed having to emotionally manage patients and their colleagues. The emotional aspects of trial work particularly came to the fore when staff notified patients about their treatment allocation. On such occasions, staff described having to employ emotional strategies to pre-empt and manage potential patient disappointment and anger. Staff also described having to manage their own emotions when patients withdrew from the trial or were not randomised to the treatment arm which, in their clinical judgment, would have been in their best interests. To help address the emotional challenges they encountered, staff highlighted a need for more practical, emotional and specialist psychological support.

conclusionsMore attention should be paid to the emotional aspects of trial work to help ensure trial staff are adequately supported. Such support could comprise: increased training for staff to improve their own and patients' understandings of randomization, role-play to develop techniques to manage patient anger and disappointment, sharing of good practice, formalised team support with psychological input and access to specialist psychological support to troubleshoot complex emotional and ethical issues.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEmotionsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCooperative BehaviorDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1EnglandFemaleHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationInterviews as TopicJob DescriptionNurse CliniciansNurse-Patient RelationsNutritionistsPatient SelectionQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID25566971
PMCPMC4326295
OpenAlexW2151417425

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.