ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Exploratory interviews with Australian clinical research staff on how they communicate with participants.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe connection between participants and their research team can affect how safe, informed, and respected a participant feels, and their willingness to complete a research project. Communication between researchers and participants is key to developing this connection, but there is little published work evaluating how communication during clinical research is conducted. PURPOSE: This paper explores what communications happen (and how) with research participants in Australia post consenting to participate in clinical research. It provides reflections from Australians working in clinical research about their current strategies, or those they would like to use, to communicate with research participants.
methodsThis exploratory, qualitative descriptive study reports findings associated with twenty semi-structured interviews that were undertaken with people who work in clinical research in Australia (such as staff in participant facing, site management, or sponsor representative roles). These interviews were conducted and analysed inductively using thematic analysis.
findingsResearch staff reported using a range of communication strategies which varied in implementation, uptake, and suitability between clinical research studies and sites. Four major themes were identified in the interviews: [1] staff use innovative pragmatism to communicate; [2] staff tailor the communication strategies to fit the participants' context; [3] the site, its systems, and staff training all impact communication; [4] successful communication requires collaboration between stakeholders.
conclusionThere are a variety of communication strategies, methods and activities research staff currently employ with trial participants, which vary in purpose, method, resources required, and suitability between studies and sites. Thorough consideration of the participants' contexts and the capacity of research sites is crucial for the design of studies which allow for effective communication between the research team and participants. The authors encourage those developing clinical research projects to involve site staff and consumer representatives early in planning for communication with participants.
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.