Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39350253›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

William J CraggClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. w.cragg@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://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 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3326-7900
Michael GreggPublic Contributor, Leeds, UK.
Mary ManciniPublic Contributor, Leeds, UK.
Clara Martins de BarrosPublic Contributor, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5715-377X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points.

methodsThe survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes.

resultsNinety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured.

conclusionsOur survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Trials as TopicCommittee MembershipCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformed ConsentMaleResearch SubjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomEthics review processesParticipant communicationParticipant withdrawalParticipation changes

Identifiers

PMID39350253
PMCPMC11440916

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.