Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34961543›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Methodological approaches for conducting follow-up research with clinical trial participants: a scoping review and expert interviews.

Aita Signorell, Jasmina Saric, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, Hannah Ewald, Christian Burri, Martin Goetz, Jana Gerold

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Aita SignorellSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, P.O. Box, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland. aita.signorell@swisstph.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-3910
Jasmina SaricSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, P.O. Box, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian Appenzeller-HerzogUniversity Medical Library Basel, University of Basel, P.O. Box, CH-4003, Basel, Switzerland.
Hannah EwaldUniversity Medical Library Basel, University of Basel, P.O. Box, CH-4003, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian BurriSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, P.O. Box, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Martin GoetzFederal Office of Public Health, Bern, Switzerland.
Jana GeroldSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, P.O. Box, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

Bundesamt für Gesundheit 60307 / Regelung FAM(E)
6 · The paper itself

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

Research DesignFeedbackFocus GroupsFollow-Up StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesMethodological approachPatient experienceRecruitmentTrials

Identifiers

PMID34961543
PMCPMC8711196

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.