No abstract

Objective: To compare two methods of providing information about the Bone Anchored Maxillary Protraction (BAMP) trial: standard printed information and multimedia websites, for their quality and ease of understanding, and impact on decision-making. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: Orthodontic outpatient clinic in the UK. Methods: Participants were 109 adolescents (aged 11–14 years) attending for orthodontic treatment. While awaiting treatment they were asked to imagine being recruited to the BAMP clinical trial. They were individually randomised to receive the printed or the multimedia website information (comprising text, animations and ‘talking head’ videos). After reading or viewing the information, they completed a 9-item Likert scale Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) (score range 0–36) plus three free-text questions on their evaluation of the information. Results: A total of 104 participants completed the questionnaire. Mean total DMQ scores were higher (more positive) in the website group (28.1 vs. 27.0), although the difference was small and not statistically significant ( P = 0.20). Analysis of individual questionnaire items showed two statistically significant differences: the website information had higher ratings on ‘easy to understand’ (Z = 3.03; P = 0.003) and ‘confidence in decision-making’ (Z = 2.00; P = 0.044). On the three free-text questions, more positive and fewer negative comments were made about the websites than the printed information. Conclusion: In this hypothetical trial setting, adolescent patients found that trial information conveyed on a multimedia website was easier to understand and made them more confident in their decision about trial participation. Their subjective evaluations of the website were also more positive and less negative than about the printed information. Multimedia information has the potential to increase the quality of engagement and information exchange when seeking consent for research.

The review reveals that empathy deserves an unchallenged place in medical care, especially in pain medicine and medical education. It highlights the need to nurture empathy at all levels of professional expertise from medical student to senior doctors.

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 (GBP) in cash with a postal recruitment pack to increase the number of participants randomised into the host trial (‘Gentle Years Yoga’) for older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant randomised. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression.  Results: 818 potential host trial participants were included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). Between those sent £5 (n=409) and not sent £5 (n=409), there was no evidence of increased randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57), but more screening forms were returned (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and there was decreased time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22). No significant interaction between the interventions was observed. The cost per additional participant randomised was £32 and £1000 for the pen and £5, respectively. Conclusion: A small, monetary incentive did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial but did encourage increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens were cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit.