Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37016435›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2023

Experiences of and recommendations on clinical trial design in Alzheimer's disease from the participant's point of view: a mixed-methods study in two clinical trial centers in the Netherlands.

Lois Ottenhoff, Everard G B Vijverberg, Leonie N C Visser, Merike Verijp, Niels D Prins, Wiesje M Van der Flier, Sietske A M Sikkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Research satisfaction among participants in a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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.

Lois OttenhoffAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081, HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Everard G B VijverbergAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081, HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Leonie N C VisserDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Merike VerijpBrain Research Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Niels D PrinsBrain Research Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wiesje M Van der FlierAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081, HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sietske A M SikkesAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081, HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.sikkes@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the context of the development of pharmaceutical interventions, expectations and experiences of participants are essential. Their insights may be particularly helpful to address the challenges of recruiting and retaining participants for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. We examined clinical trial participants' experiences to optimize trial design in Alzheimer's disease (AD).

methodIn this mixed-methods study, we included adults who participated in sponsor-initiated AD trials at Brain Research Center, a clinical trial organization in the Netherlands. Participants (N = 71, age 69 ± 6.5, 54%F, 19 cognitively normal (CN), 19 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 33 AD dementia) first completed an online survey. Diagnostic group differences were investigated using chi-square tests or one-way ANOVAs. Next, a subsample (N = 12; 8 = CN, 4 = MCI) participated in focus groups to gain in-depth insight into their opinions on optimizing trial design from a participants' point of view. Audio recordings from focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic content analysis by two independent researchers.

resultsMost reported motives for enrolment included "to benefit future generations" (89%), followed by "for science" (66%) and "better monitoring" (42%). Frequent suggestions for increasing willingness to participate included a smaller chance to receive placebo (n = 38, 54%), shorter travel times (n = 27, 38%), and sharing individual results of different assessments (n = 57, 80%), as well as receiving trial results (n = 52, 73). Highest visual analogue burden scores (0-100) were found for the lumbar puncture (M = 47.2, SD = 38.2) and cognitive assessments (M = 27.2, SD = 25.7). Results did not differ between diagnostic groups, nor between patient and caregiver participants (all p-values>.05). Two additional themes emerged from the focus groups: "trial design," such as follow-up visit(s) after participating, and "trial center," including the relevance of a professional and empathic staff.

conclusionRelevant factors include expectation management and careful planning of high-burden assessments, provision of individual feedback, and prioritizing professionalism and empathy throughout conduct of the trial. Our findings provide insight into participants' priorities to increase willingness to participate and can be used to optimize trial success.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseClinical Trials as TopicCognitive DysfunctionAgedBrainHumansMiddle AgedNetherlandsResearch DesignAlzheimer’s diseaseAlzheimer’s disease clinical trialsEngagement in research trialsMild cognitive impairmentPatient preferencesPatientsQualitative researchQuantitative research

Identifiers

PMID37016435
PMCPMC10071606

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.