Trial reportPloS one2017
Reducing therapeutic misconception: A randomized intervention trial in hypothetical clinical trials.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A rapid review of community engagement and informed consent processes for adaptive platform trials and alternative design trials for public health emergencies.Wellcome open research · 2023Pooled it
- Provider and User Acceptability of Integrated Treatment for the Control of Malaria and Helminths in Saraya, South-Eastern Senegal.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Trial
- Deferred consent in emergency obstetric research: findings from qualitative interviews with women and recruiters in theBMJ open · 2022Trial
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making in trial recruitment intervention studies: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Methodology and predictive accuracy of the prospective preference assessment for randomized trial enrollment: A literature review.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2025Review
- Repurposing Metformin in Precision Oncology: Mechanistic Insights, Biomarker-Guided Strategies, and Translational Imperatives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Oncologists' knowledge, practices and ethical opinions about therapeutic misconception: a French national survey.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- COVID-19 clinical trials: who is likely to participate and why?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Article
- Participants' experiences of a counsellor-supported PTSD Coach intervention in a resource-constrained setting.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
- Genomics Research with Undiagnosed Children: Ethical Challenges at the Boundaries of Research and Clinical Care.The Journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Mammographic breast density status in women aged more than 40 years in Sulaimaniyah, Iraq: a cross-sectional study.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- Article
- Covid-19 pandemic research opportunity: Is the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) missing out?Contemporary clinical trials · 2020Review
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of serum and tumor tissue iron and risk of breast cancer.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2020Review
- Raising Awareness of Therapeutic Misconception and Optimism Around Clinical Trials in Huntington's Disease.Journal of Huntington's disease · 2019Article
- First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipants in clinical trials frequently fail to appreciate key differences between research and clinical care. This phenomenon, known as therapeutic misconception, undermines informed consent to clinical research, but to date there have been no effective interventions to reduce it and concerns have been expressed that to do so might impede recruitment. We determined whether a scientific reframing intervention reduces therapeutic misconception without significantly reducing willingness to participate in hypothetical clinical trials.
methodsThis prospective randomized trial was conducted from 2015 to 2016 to test the efficacy of an informed consent intervention based on scientific reframing compared to a traditional informed consent procedure (control) in reducing therapeutic misconception among patients considering enrollment in hypothetical clinical trials modeled on real-world studies for one of five disease categories. Patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, head/neck cancer, breast cancer, and major depression were recruited from medical clinics and a clinical research volunteer database. The primary outcomes were therapeutic misconception, as measured by a validated, ten-item Therapeutic Misconception Scale (range = 10-50), and willingness to participate in the clinical trial.
results154 participants completed the study (age range, 23-87 years; 92.3% white, 56.5% female); 74 (48.1%) had been randomized to receive the experimental intervention. Therapeutic misconception was significantly lower (p = 0.004) in the scientific reframing group (26.4, 95% CI [23.7 to 29.1] compared to the control group (30.9, 95% CI [28.4 to 33.5], and remained so after controlling for education (p = 0.017). Willingness to participate in the hypothetical trial was not significantly different (p = 0.603) between intervention (52.1%, 95% CI [40.2% to 62.4%]) and control (56.3%, 95% CI [45.3% to 66.6%] groups.
conclusionsAn enhanced educational intervention augmenting traditional informed consent led to a meaningful reduction in therapeutic misconception without a statistically significant change in willingness to enroll in hypothetical clinical trials. Additional study of this intervention is required in real-world clinical trials.
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.