ArticleTrials2021
Methodological approaches for conducting follow-up research with clinical trial participants: a scoping review and expert interviews.
Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the feedback effects of incentive methods on HIV rapid self-testing among men who have sex with men in Chongqing, China.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Optimizing patient-reported sociodemographic measures in health care - a national example of the development and evaluation of a practical standardized instrument for collecting patient data in studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Micro-costing of genetic and genomic testing in oncology: a systematic review of laboratory resources and costs.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Decisions, Decisions: Observations of Resource Allocation Under Consumer-Directed Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patients' experiences of clinical trial participation involving a product remotely assessing study drug adherence.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Participant Experience of Taking Part in Periodontal Experimental Studies.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- "There was No Opportunity to Express Good or Bad": Perspectives From Patient Focus Groups on Patient Experience in Clinical Trials.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Decentralized clinical trials are better for the participants and for the planet: the case study of a double-blind randomized controlled trial in Singapore (PROMOTE study).Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Empowering the Participant Voice (EPV): Design and implementation of collaborative infrastructure to collect research participant experience feedback at scale.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- It's time to measure the long-term effects of occupational therapy interventions.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based establishment and implementation of best principles, laws and ordinances that regulate clinical research depend on the consultation and involvement of trial participants. Yet, guidance on methodological approaches to obtain trial participants' perspectives is currently missing. This scoping review therefore aimed at identifying, describing and evaluating research approaches to obtain trial participants' feedback on their views and experiences.
methodsWe searched the electronic databases Medline and PsycInfo via Ovid and the Web of Science Core Collection. Clinical trials were included that involved adult participants that were conducted in selected high-income countries and that were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 2018. In addition, 29 expert interviews were conducted between March and May 2019.
resultsOut of 5994 identified records, 23 articles were included in this review. Twelve studies used a qualitative approach, 10 were quantitative and one study used a mixed-method design. More than 75% of all work was conducted in the USA and the UK. The scoping review and the expert interviews highlighted that recruitment of participants was generally done through direct contact by principal investigators and/or study nurses or through searches in de-identified patient databases. Authors used surveys, interviews or focus group discussions. The tools used were either based on existing validated ones or developed and verified de novo with the support of experts and/or patient representatives.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first methodological literature review of approaches to researching experiences of clinical trial participants where findings were triangulated with expert interviews. Covering a range of indications, trial phases and study settings, it demonstrates that clinical trial participant perspectives and experience is heavily under-researched. This casts doubt on the overall robustness of available insight into trial participants' views and experiences. Our results demonstrate that the methodology for studying participant opinion, perception and experience should be adapted to the measure of interest and conform to the study population. Using valid patient experience data is the basis to evaluate existing legal and regulatory human subject research frameworks for their appropriateness from a patient perspective. Such an evaluation will be critical to empower research 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.