Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26202164›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2015

Patient experiences in retinal trials: a cross-sectional study.

Cheryl Pui-Yan Au, Nicole Fardell, Maria Williams, Samantha Fraser-Bell, Anna Campain, Mark Gillies

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. How Do Patients Respond to Genetic Testing for Age-related Macular Degeneration?Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2018
    Article
  10. 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.

Cheryl Pui-Yan AuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. cheryl.au@gmail.com.
Nicole FardellSydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. nfar3343@uni.sydney.edu.au.
Maria WilliamsMacular Research Group, Room 116, Level 1, Save Sight Institute, Campus of Sydney Eye Hospital, 8 Macquarie St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. maria.williams@sydney.edu.au.
Samantha Fraser-BellMacular Research Group, Room 116, Level 1, Save Sight Institute, Campus of Sydney Eye Hospital, 8 Macquarie St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. sfraserbell@gmail.com.
Anna CampainMacular Research Group, Room 116, Level 1, Save Sight Institute, Campus of Sydney Eye Hospital, 8 Macquarie St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. anna.campain@sydney.edu.au.
Mark GilliesSydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. mark.gillies@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-centered care recognizes the obligation to understand and meet patient's expectations. An individual's satisfaction has been found to affect health-related decisions and treatment-related behaviours, which in turn affect medical compliance, follow-up, the success of treatment and the appropriate use of services. We studied the expectations, experiences and satisfaction of patients who participated in clinical trials for retinal diseases at the Sydney Eye Hospital.

methodsThe study was undertaken at the research clinic of the major public quaternary eye hospital in New South Wales, Australia. A 37-question survey was conducted on patients enrolled in or who had finished a clinical trial for macular disease in the 12 months preceding this study in November 2012. Patient satisfaction was assessed using close-ended, multiple choice questions. First, the decision making process for entering into the clinical trial was evaluated. Then the level of patient understanding and experience during the study was assessed. Finally, there was a series of questions to gauge the participants' perception of trial outcomes and overall impression gained from the experience.

resultsEighty patients completed the questionnaire. Overall patient satisfaction was high with the majority of patients stating they would recommend participation in a retinal clinical trial (94 %) and participate in a subsequent trial (78 %). Most patients rated themselves as the most important factor in making the decision to join a trial. Patients felt well informed and expectations were generally felt to be met, however 14 % did not believe that they could withdraw from the study voluntarily. The most common reasons for trial participation were to contribute to medical science and to have improved treatment outcomes.

conclusionsWe found that patients generally found participation in retinal clinical trials to be a positive experience. Factors contributing to dissatisfaction mainly related to inconvenience experienced by transportation and waiting times. We also found that patients felt well informed about the study, but some did not have a complete understanding of their rights, which had been communicated to them when they entered the study. There were both altruistic and self-motivated reasons behind patients' decisions to join a retinal trial.

Indexed as

MotivationPatient-Centered CareAgedAustraliaClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsRetinal DiseasesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26202164
PMCPMC4511246

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.