Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38637845›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration.

William J Cragg, Liam Bishop, Rachael Gilberts, Michael Gregg, Terry Lowdon, Mary Mancini, Clara Martins de Barros, Pete Wheatstone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

William J CraggClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. w.cragg@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1274-8521
Liam BishopClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rachael GilbertsClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3326-7900
Michael GreggPublic contributor, Leeds, UK.
Terry LowdonPublic contributor, Leeds, UK.
Mary ManciniPublic contributor, Leeds, UK.
Clara Martins de BarrosPublic contributor, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5715-377X
Pete WheatstoneClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0869-3449

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research CTU Support Funding scheme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch study participants can stop taking part early, in various circumstances. Sometimes this experience can be stressful. Providing participants with the information they want or need when they stop could improve participants' experiences, and may benefit individual studies' objectives and research in general. A group of public contributors and researchers at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, aimed to develop a communication template and researcher guidance. This would address how to provide information sensitively around the time when participants stop or significantly reduce their level of participation.

methodsThe project lead used scoping review methods to identify relevant prior evidence and derive a list of potential information topics to communicate to participants who stop taking part. The topic list was reviewed by research professionals and public contributors before finalisation. Further public contributors were identified from a range of networks. The contributors formed a 'development group', to work on the detail of the planned resources, and a larger 'review group' to review the draft output before finalisation. The involvement was planned so that the development group could shape the direction and pace of the work.

resultsThe literature review identified 413 relevant reports, resulting in 94 information topics. The review suggested that this issue has not been well explored previously. Some evidence suggested early-stopping participants are sometimes excluded from important communications (such as study results) without clear justification. The development group agreed early to focus on guidance with reusable examples rather than a template. We took time to explore different perspectives and made decisions by informal consensus. Review group feedback was broadly positive but highlighted the need to improve resource navigability, leading to its final online form.

conclusionsWe co-developed a resource to provide support to research participants who stop taking part. A strength of this work is that several of the public contributors have direct lived experience of stopping research participation. We encourage others to review the resource and consider how they support these participants in their studies. Our work highlights the value of researchers and participants working together, including on complex and ethically challenging topics.

Indexed as

Participant communicationParticipation changesWithdrawal

Identifiers

PMID38637845
PMCPMC11025252

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.