Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2019
Should I stay or should I go? A qualitative study exploring participation in a urology clinical trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress and challenges in expanding access to clinical trials in pancreatic cancer.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Transforming patient recruitment in clinical trials: Communication training to manage uncertainties about risks and benefits.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Tensions Within Incentives, Altruism, and Trust in Clinical Trial Participation: Perspectives From African American and Black Caribbean Patients and Clinical Research Coordinators Who Recruit Them.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Psychosocial burden of recurrent uncomplicated urinary tract infections.GMS infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Urotherapist activities in caring for patients with pelvic floor disorders: a prospective single-center observational study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to identify modifiable factors to improve recruitment in a urology clinical trial of women with recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI). An embedded qualitative study was conducted with patients and recruiting clinicians in the first 8 months of the trial. We present a matrix of factors influencing how patients make decisions about trial participation.
methodsThis was a qualitative study using telephone interviews. When they were first approached about the trial, women were asked to complete an expression of interest form if they wished to be contacted for an interview. Data were analysed thematically. NVivo 10 software (Qualitative data analysis software. 10th ed: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2012) was used as a management tool.
resultsThirty patients and 11 clinicians were interviewed. Influences on patient participation included the impact of rUTI on quality of life (QoL), understanding of antibiotic resistance, and previous experiences with antibiotics either positive or negative. Very few women who declined the trial agreed to be interviewed. However, some of those who participated had reservations about it. These included the perceived risk of trying a new treatment, trial length, and the burden of participating. One person interviewed left the trial because of repeated infections and difficulties getting general practitioner appointments.
conclusionsA combination of factors worked to influence women to decide to participate, to remain in, or to leave the trial. A better understanding of how these factors interact and work can assist in the recruitment and retention of individual trial participants.
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.