ArticleTrials2024
The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs.
Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The work and vocational advice intervention for adults in full or part-time employment: a synopsis of the WAVE feasibility study and RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Article
- Development of a clinical trial knowledge management application for community oncology.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Participation and Refusal in an Implementation Trial: Insights from the Accelerating Cervical Cancer Elimination through the Integration of Screen-and-Treat Services (ACCESS) Study.Research square · 2026Article
- Exploring the Perspectives of Patients and Healthcare Providers on Rheumatology Clinical Trials: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study in Hungary.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the challenges of recruiting to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented, few studies have focused on the impact that the communication between recruiters and patients has on patients' participation decisions. Recruiters are thought to influence patient decision-making, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. The aim of this research was to investigate how patients interpret and use the information conveyed to them by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in trial participation decisions.
methodsThree pragmatic UK-based multicentre RCTs were purposively sampled to provide contrasting clinical specialities. Data collection was integrated into each RCT, including audio-recordings of patient recruitment consultations and interviews with patients. Where possible, consultation audio-recordings were linked to interviews to explore how information communicated by recruiters was interpreted and used by patients during their decision-making. Data were analysed thematically, using the constant comparison approach.
resultsTwenty audio-recorded recruitment consultations were obtained across the 3 RCTs, combined with 42 interviews with patients who had consented to or declined RCT participation. Consultation and interview data were 'linked' for 17 individual patients. Throughout the patient's clinical pathway, HCPs (both those involved in the RCT and not) influenced patients' perceptions of treatment need and benefit by indicating that they preferred a particular treatment option for the patient as an individual. Whilst patients valued and were influenced by information conveyed by HCPs, they also drew on support from other sources and ultimately framed RCT participation decisions as their own. Patients' willingness to be randomised hinged on perceptions of whether they stood to benefit from a particular treatment and the availability of those treatments outside of the trial.
conclusionThis study supports the need for training and support for healthcare professionals involved throughout the clinical pathway of patients eligible for RCTs, as all healthcare professionals who interact with patients have the potential to influence their perceptions of treatments being compared in the trial.
trial registrationOPTIMA ISRCTN42400492. Prospectively registered on 26 June 2012. Prepare for Kidney Care ISRCTN17133653. Prospectively registered on 31 May 2017. MARS 2 ISRCTN44351742. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2018.
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.