ArticleBMC health services research2017
Clinical trials from the patient perspective: survey in an online patient community.
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunities and pitfalls of social media research in rare genetic diseases: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- A survey of patients with laryngotracheal stenosis on future clinical trial design.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial design: Evaluating the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of time-restricted eating in pregnant women with obesity.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Patient perspective of Hesitancies and strategies to increase cancer clinical trial participation.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- From Isolation to Information: Launching an Online Community for Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis, Primary Biliary Cholangitis, and Autoimmune Hepatitis in Romania-A Descriptive Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Increasing the Value of Health Intervention Trials: Qualitative Research in the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET).Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Public Perception of Clinical Trials and Its Predictors Among Polish Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Factors Influencing Clinical Trial Participation: An In-depth Analysis of Patients With Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2025Review
- Perceptions and attitudes toward clinical trial participation: a study onFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Participant Perspectives on an Invasive Spinal Neuromodulation Study for Functional Sensorimotor and Autonomic Restoration in Chronic Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury: A Qualitative Case Series.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Knowledge and perception of a clinical trial among the participants: An experience from oral cholera vaccine study in Koshi Province, Nepal.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Participant-reported personal utility of genetic testing for Parkinson's disease and interest in clinical trial participation.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2024Article
- Anything is better than nothing': exploring attitudes towards novel therapies in leukodystrophy clinical trials.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- User expectations and experiences of an assistive robotic arm in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a multicenter observational study.Neurological research and practice · 2024Article
- Patients' experiences of clinical trial participation involving a product remotely assessing study drug adherence.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Mapping Strategies for Reaching Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations in Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Rational combination platform trial design for children and young adults with diffuse midline glioma: A report from PNOC.Neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Defining interventions and metrics to improve diversity in CNS clinical trial participation: A SNO and RANO effort.Neuro-oncology · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeveloping new medicines relies on the successful conduct of clinical trials. As trial protocols become more arduous, it becomes harder to recruit and retain patient volunteers, although recent efforts such as OMERACT and I-SPY2 show that partnering with patients can be beneficial. We sought to describe drivers and barriers to trial participation, as well as condition-specific trial preferences.
methodsAn online survey was fielded via the patient-powered research network PatientsLikeMe to 1,621 members living with nine selected chronic health conditions. Questions included demographics, trial experience, reasons for non-participation, questions relating to aspects of trial design, and an adaptation of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) for trial satisfaction.
resultsMean age of respondents was 55 years; most patients were white (93%), female (67%), and living in the United States (72%). Primary conditions were MS (21%), Parkinson's (20%), fibromyalgia (15%), ALS (10%), type 2 diabetes (10%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 8%), epilepsy (8%), major depressive disorder (MDD, 5%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, 3%). Most patients had not discussed a trial with their physician and only 21% had ever enrolled, with rates highest in ALS (36%), Parkinson's disease (36%) and MS (20%) and lowest among SLE (9%), MDD (11%) and Fibromyalgia (11%). Common reasons for non-participation were eligibility criteria, inconvenience of travel and concerns about side effects. NPS suggested that many patients were unsatisfied; patients with lupus, epilepsy, RA, and fibromyalgia reported negative scores, i.e. they would dissuade other patients like them from taking part in trials. The most important considerations in trial participation were the opportunity to improve one's own health and that of others, the reputation of the institution, and having medical bills covered in case of injury. Least important were remuneration and possibility of receiving a placebo. ALS patients were more willing to tolerate undesirable aspects of trials.
conclusionsMost patients are willing to enroll yet very few are invited. When they do, trial participation is often burdensome, but patients are willing to help improve their design. Researchers should let patients help design better trials to overcome recruitment and retention issues and hasten the development of new medicines.
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.