Trials need participants but not their feedback?: A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials

Claire Planner; Peter Bower; Ailsa Donnelly; K Gillies; Katrina Turner; Bridget Young

doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y

Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials

Claire Planner (Corresponding Author)
, Peter Bower
, Ailsa Donnelly
, K Gillies
, Katrina Turner
, Bridget Young

University of Liverpool
University of Manchester
University of Bristol

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

43 Citations (Scopus)

14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently 'patient-centred' (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial.

METHODS: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others).

CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials.

Original language	English
Article number	381
Journal	Trials
Volume	20
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y
Publication status	Published - 24 Jun 2019

Bibliographical note

CP is funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (Launching Fellowship). Earlier work informing this review was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Hub for Trials Methodology (MR/L004933/2 - R46).

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

trial
participation
patient experience
patient satisfaction
patient-centred trials
Participation
Trial
Patient experience
Patient satisfaction
Patient-centred trials
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS
RECRUITMENT
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
INVOLVEMENT
CANCER
PATIENT SURVEY
PERCEPTION
INFORMED-CONSENT
SATISFACTION
HEALTH-CARE

Access to Document

10.1186/s13063-019-3444-yLicence: CC BY

Trials need participants but not their feedback
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Final published version, 845 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{e64b6d4d9abf4bd4b443a02121927cae,

title = "Trials need participants but not their feedback?: A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently 'patient-centred' (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial.METHODS: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis.RESULTS: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others).CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials.",

keywords = "trial, participation, patient experience, patient satisfaction, patient-centred trials, Participation, Trial, Patient experience, Patient satisfaction, Patient-centred trials, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS, RECRUITMENT, QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, INVOLVEMENT, CANCER, PATIENT SURVEY, PERCEPTION, INFORMED-CONSENT, SATISFACTION, HEALTH-CARE",

author = "Claire Planner and Peter Bower and Ailsa Donnelly and K Gillies and Katrina Turner and Bridget Young",

note = "CP is funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (Launching Fellowship). Earlier work informing this review was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Hub for Trials Methodology (MR/L004933/2 - R46). ",

year = "2019",

month = jun,

day = "24",

doi = "10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

journal = "Trials",

issn = "1745-6215",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trials need participants but not their feedback?

T2 - A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials

AU - Planner, Claire

AU - Bower, Peter

AU - Donnelly, Ailsa

AU - Gillies, K

AU - Turner, Katrina

AU - Young, Bridget

N1 - CP is funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (Launching Fellowship). Earlier work informing this review was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Hub for Trials Methodology (MR/L004933/2 - R46).

PY - 2019/6/24

Y1 - 2019/6/24

N2 - BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently 'patient-centred' (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial.METHODS: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis.RESULTS: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others).CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials.

AB - BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently 'patient-centred' (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial.METHODS: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis.RESULTS: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others).CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials.

KW - trial

KW - participation

KW - patient experience

KW - patient satisfaction

KW - patient-centred trials

KW - Participation

KW - Trial

KW - Patient experience

KW - Patient satisfaction

KW - Patient-centred trials

KW - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS

KW - RECRUITMENT

KW - QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

KW - INVOLVEMENT

KW - CANCER

KW - PATIENT SURVEY

KW - PERCEPTION

KW - INFORMED-CONSENT

KW - SATISFACTION

KW - HEALTH-CARE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068123592&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/trials-need-participants-not-feedback-scoping-review-published-papers-measurement-participant-experi

U2 - 10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y

DO - 10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31234945

SN - 1745-6215

VL - 20

JO - Trials

JF - Trials

M1 - 381

ER -