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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A whole family-based physical activity promotion intervention: findings from the families reporting every step to health (FRESH) pilot randomised controlled trial

“…Our average recruitment rate was~7 families/month (range = 2-15 families/month) despite using a multi-faceted recruitment strategy that targeted adults and children, included a wide range of settings, and direct and indirect recruitment strategies. The recruitment of participants into intervention research has been notoriously difficult [53,54]. A review of 73 publicly funded trials in the UK (through the National Institute for Health Research) found that only 55% recruited 100% of their target sample size within their pre-agreed timescale and nearly 45% received an extension of some kind [55].…”

Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature

“…Citizen science ecological studies are key to evaluating ecosystem health in areas best understood by local residents, but recruitment and retention of engaged volunteers is challenging. Similarly, randomized controlled trials are essential to establish health benefits to patients themselves, but they too often fail to recruit their target sample size 103 . For example, randomized controlled trials are particularly important in cancer, but less than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials.…”

“…Drawbacks are the time and money required, and the potential to turn these steps into just another a checkbox rather than real engagement 107 . The “patient and public involvement” movement involves patients in trial design and delivery, but there is still little assessment or even definition of this approach 103 …”

Disseminating clinical study results to trial participants in Ethiopia: insights and lessons learned

“…It was also unknown whether participants were allocated to the control or intervention arms during the trial and if experiences might have differed between treatment arms. Formal assessments of participants' experiences are rarely undertaken systematically [21], but such an approach could potentially inform study conduct. Furthermore, it is unclear what methods of dissemination are most appropriate and they are likely to be context and trial specific [21,22].…”