Randomised controlled trials are the acknowledged 'gold standard' method of evaluating the effectiveness of treatments, but little is known about how and why patients decide to participate in trials nor how much they understand about trial design. In this study, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 33 middle aged and older men with lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic disease, 22 of whom had consented to participate and 11 refused to take part in a randomised trial. The trial was evaluating the effectiveness of a new technology (laser therapy) compared with standard surgery (transurethral resection of the prostate ) and conservative management (monitoring without active intervention) (the CLasP study). Purposive sampling was used to include participants from different centres, each treatment arm, and at different stages in participation, as well as those indicated to have refused participation. Interviews explored their recall and understanding of trial information, and their reasoning about how they were allocated to a treatment. Data were analysed thematically according to the methods of constant comparison, and by examining each participant's narrative of their experiences. Most participants recalled major aspects of trial design, including the involvement of chance, but the case studies showed that most also held other co-existing (and sometimes contradictory) views about their treatment allocation. The key to understanding their experiences was their engagement in a struggle to understand the trial in the context of their own beliefs, their recall of the study information and their actual experiences of the trial. The outcome of the struggle was the placing of trust in clinicians or the development of distrust. Non-participants made sense of their experiences in similar ways, but gave different reasons for non-participation than indicated by recruiters. This study shows that most eligible patients, whatever their level of knowledge, will struggle to make sense of their participation in randomised trials. The provision of clearer written information or time to discuss the trial with particular individuals might be beneficial, although greater public understanding of trials is also needed.

Objectives To explore trial participants' understandings of randomisation. Design In this exploratory study, which used qualitative research methods, in-depth, semistructured interviews were carried out with 20 participants from the CLasP randomised controlled trial. Interviews were recorded on audio tape and fully transcribed. Data were analysed by comparing transcripts and describing emergent themes, using a grounded theory approach. Setting The CLasP study comprises three linked multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of laser therapy, standard surgery, and conservative management for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention, or both, related to benign prostatic disease. Subjects 20 participants in the CLasP study were interviewed. Sampling was purposeful: men were included from each of the treatment arms, the two major centres, and at different points in the trial. Interventions and outcome measures Interviews used a checklist of topics to encourage participants to describe their experiences. Narratives concerning randomisation were compared to identify common themes, retaining the context of the discussion to allow detailed interpretation. Results Most participants recalled and described aspects of randomisation, such as the involvement of chance, comparison, and concealed allocation. Many found the concept of randomisation difficult, however, and developed alternative lay explanations to make sense of their experiences. Inaccurate patient information and lay interpretations of common trial terms caused confusion. Conclusions The provision of clear and accurate patient information is important, but this alone will not ensure consistent interpretation of concepts such as randomisation. Patients may need to discuss the purposes of randomisation in order to understand them fully enough to give truly informed consent.

Patients attending genetic clinics are often the main gatekeepers of information for other family members. There has been much debate about the circumstances under which professionals may have an obligation, or may be permitted, to pass on personal genetic information about their clients but without their consent to other family members. We report findings from the first prospective study investigating the frequency with which genetics professionals become concerned about the failure of clients to pass on such information to their relatives. In all, 12 UK and two Australian regional genetic services reported such cases over 12 months, including details of actions taken by professionals in response to the clients' failure to disclose information. A total of 65 cases of nondisclosure were reported, representing o1% of the genetic clinic consultations in the collaborating centres during the study period. These included 39 cases of the failure of parents not passing full information to their adult offspring, 22 cases where siblings or other relatives were not given information and four cases where information was withheld from partnersincluding former and prospective partners. Professionals reported clients' reasons for withholding information as complex, more often citing concern and the desire to shield relatives from distress rather than poor family relationships. In most cases, the professionals took further steps to persuade their clients to make a disclosure but in no instance did the professional force a disclosure without the client's consent.

Background There is little research examining resistance, refusal or rejection of care by people living with dementia within acute hospital wards despite the prevalence of dementia in adult hospital populations. Objectives To explore the ways in which resistance to care manifests within the acute setting and is understood, classified and subsequently managed by ward staff.

Background: Qualitative methods are increasingly used to study the process of clinical trials and patients understanding of the rationale for trials, randomisation and reasons for taking part or refusing. Patients' understandings are inevitably influenced by the recruiting clinician's understanding of the trial, yet relatively little qualitative work has explored clinicians' perceptions and understandings of trials. This study interviewed surgeons shortly after the multi-centre, pragmatic RCT in which they had participated had been completed.