Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41286941›Full record

ArticleTrials2025

Shared decision-making and behaviour change collide: an analysis of consultations discussing clinical trial recruitment.

Abigail Stephen, Ayodeji Matuluko, Kelly Carroll, Taylor Coffey, Louisa Lawrie, Frances Sherratt, Natasha Hudek, Fabianna Lorencatto, Justin Presseau, Susan Marlin and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

13 authors.

Abigail StephenAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6742-7901
Ayodeji MatulukoAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Kelly CarrollMethodological and Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Taylor CoffeyAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Louisa LawrieAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Frances SherrattDepartment of Public Health, Policy & Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Natasha HudekMethodological and Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Fabianna LorencattoCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.
Justin PresseauMethodological and Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Susan MarlinClinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Dawn P RichardsClinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Jamie BrehautMethodological and Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Katie GilliesAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. k.gillies@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-2854

Funding

CIHR PJT 169055Medical Research Council MR/X007464/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment to clinical trials is often challenging, and evidence on effective recruitment strategies remains limited. Framing trial recruitment as a behaviour, amenable to change, enables the application of behavioural science frameworks to better understand and potentially improve recruitment processes. Since trial participation is also a preference-sensitive decision, shared decision-making (SDM) may further enhance ethical recruitment. The present study aimed to explore how behavioural taxonomies and SDM frameworks can be applied to recruitment consultations to identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and assess the extent of SDM.

methodsA secondary analysis was conducted on 53 audio-recorded consultations; consultations from 3 trials in oncology and gastroenterology were sampled. The action, actor, context, target, and time (AACTT) framework was used to define recruitment behaviours, which were then coded using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1). SDM was assessed using the 5-item 'Observing Patient Involvement' (OPTION5) tool, which evaluates patient involvement in decision-making. Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were used to analyse the data.

resultsTwenty-one of the 93 BCTs in the BCTTv1 were identified across all consultations. The most frequently coded BCTs were 5.1 (information about health consequences) and 5.3 (information about social and environmental consequences), both present in all consultations. No substantial difference in the total number of BCTs was observed between trial consenters (M = 6.8, SD = 1.5) and decliners (M = 6.4, SD = 2.1). However, some techniques showed variability: BCT 7.1 (prompts and cues) appeared more frequently in consultations with consenters (84%) than decliners (38%), while BCT 1.4 (action planning) was more frequent in decliners (44%) than consenters (27%). SDM, as measured by OPTION5, was low overall, with a mean score of 27.7 (SD = 12.2) out of 100, with no significant differences across trials or participant groups.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility of applying behavioural science and SDM frameworks to analyse trial recruitment consultations. While a range of BCTs were identified, SDM efforts were generally low. Recruitment practices may benefit from more deliberate consideration of these techniques and greater emphasis on shared decision-making to support informed choices.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision Making, SharedPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionReferral and ConsultationResearch SubjectsFemaleGastroenterologyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedBehavioural scienceBehaviour changeClinical trialsInformed consentRecruitmentShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41286941
PMCPMC12642203

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.