Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2024 Dec 18;25(1):829.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08656-y.

The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs

Nicola Farrar  1 , Daisy Elliott  2   3 , Marcus Jepson  2 , Bridget Young  4 , Jenny L Donovan  2 , Carmel Conefrey  2 , Alba X Realpe  2   3 , Nicola Mills  2 , Julia Wade  2 , Eric Lim  5 , Robert C Stein  6 , Fergus J Caskey  2 , Leila Rooshenas  2   3
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs

Nicola Farrar et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Although the challenges of recruiting to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented, few studies have focused on the impact that the communication between recruiters and patients has on patients' participation decisions. Recruiters are thought to influence patient decision-making, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. The aim of this research was to investigate how patients interpret and use the information conveyed to them by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in trial participation decisions.

Methods: Three pragmatic UK-based multicentre RCTs were purposively sampled to provide contrasting clinical specialities. Data collection was integrated into each RCT, including audio-recordings of patient recruitment consultations and interviews with patients. Where possible, consultation audio-recordings were linked to interviews to explore how information communicated by recruiters was interpreted and used by patients during their decision-making. Data were analysed thematically, using the constant comparison approach.

Results: Twenty audio-recorded recruitment consultations were obtained across the 3 RCTs, combined with 42 interviews with patients who had consented to or declined RCT participation. Consultation and interview data were 'linked' for 17 individual patients. Throughout the patient's clinical pathway, HCPs (both those involved in the RCT and not) influenced patients' perceptions of treatment need and benefit by indicating that they preferred a particular treatment option for the patient as an individual. Whilst patients valued and were influenced by information conveyed by HCPs, they also drew on support from other sources and ultimately framed RCT participation decisions as their own. Patients' willingness to be randomised hinged on perceptions of whether they stood to benefit from a particular treatment and the availability of those treatments outside of the trial.

Conclusion: This study supports the need for training and support for healthcare professionals involved throughout the clinical pathway of patients eligible for RCTs, as all healthcare professionals who interact with patients have the potential to influence their perceptions of treatments being compared in the trial.

Trial registration: OPTIMA ISRCTN42400492. Prospectively registered on 26 June 2012. Prepare for Kidney Care ISRCTN17133653. Prospectively registered on 31 May 2017. MARS 2 ISRCTN44351742. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2018.

Keywords: Qualitative; Randomised controlled trials; Recruitment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval for interviews with patients, the audio-recording of recruitment consultations (both those who consented and declined, including patients and recruiters) was obtained alongside ethical approval for the full study RCTs. This included consent for anonymised quotations to be used in publications. Ethical approval for MARS 2 was granted by London – Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee (reference: 13/LO/1481) Ethical approval for OPTIMA was granted by London – Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 12/LO/0515) Ethical approval for Prepare for Kidney Care was granted by the South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/SC/0070) Consent for publication: As above. In addition, the chief investigators of the three RCTs used as case studies (EL, RCS, FK) have given permission for data from these studies to be presented in this publication. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Theme map
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Walters SJ, Henriques-Cadby IBDA, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrom M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2):e002360. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, Williamson P. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15(1):399. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tudur-Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources