ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Information seeking by participants enrolled in randomized clinical trials of behavioral interventions.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Little is known regarding information seeking by participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions. The current study explored the prevalence of information seeking, whether information seeking varied by participant demographic characteristics, and whether information seeking affected participants' study knowledge or trial-related behavior. Methods: Adults who were currently or recently enrolled in a behavioral RCT completed an online survey. Respondents were asked retrospectively about their trial participation history, information seeking behavior before and after trial enrollment, and how any information found impacted their trial experience. Results: Respondents (N = 92) predominantly identified as women (70.7 %) and White (62.0 %), had an average (mean ± SD) age of 45.1 ± 12.4 years, and were enrolled in trials with a range of foci, from weight loss (38 %) to smoking cessation (31.5 %) and mental health (22.8 %). Overall, 37 % searched for trial information at least once, with 28.3 % searching before enrollment and 17.4 % after enrollment, most commonly via internet search engines. Participants searched for details regarding trial length, study conditions, expected findings, and compensation. Searching for information was not associated with experience during trial consent. Searching prior to enrollment generally increased likelihood of enrollment, whereas searching after enrollment was reported to have limited to no effect on trial behavior. Discussion: A sizable minority of trial participants search for trial information from outside sources, which may support increased enrollment. Investigators should consider how information shared online (e.g., via protocol papers or ClinicalTrials.gov) describes study hypotheses and intervention techniques to avoid potential bias due to participant demand characteristics or intervention diffusion.
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.