ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Assessment of Participant Satisfaction and Overall Experience: A Cross-Sectional Survey to Inform Trial Conduct.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study assessed participants' experience with their clinical trial and explored perceived health improvements to support quality improvement initiatives. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among participants of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial on magnesium supplementation in type 2 diabetes. All participants were invited to complete a 25-item survey after providing informed consent. The survey covered general information, core trial experience (Five-Point-Likert-Scale), symptom improvement, overall satisfaction, and open-ended questions. The tool was bilingually developed, culturally adapted, and psychometrically tested for consistency and validity. Both quantitative and qualitative thematic analysis were performed. Results: The survey demonstrated a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.93), and a strong construct validity characterized by a predominant unidimensional structure (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value=0.897). Of 227 contacted participants, 132 completed the survey (response rate: 58.15%). Satisfaction scores were consistently positive, especially for staff professionalism, respect for time, and informed consent clarity. Most respondents (75%) were willing to join future trials, and 87.88% would recommend participation. Over half reported symptom improvements, particularly in muscle cramps, energy, and sleep quality. No significant association was found between satisfaction and symptom improvement. Satisfaction was high across all educational levels. Open-ended responses emphasized staff professionalism, clear communication, and perceived health benefits as key factors to the overall reported satisfaction. Conclusion: Respondents reported a consistently high satisfaction level, with perceived symptom improvements and strong willingness to future participation. This internally reliable and structurally valid survey captured meaningful feedback and may serve as a valuable quality improvement initiative to enhance patient engagement and optimize trial conduct, however, within the study's limitations.
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.