Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study

被引:107
作者
Mills, N
Donovan, JL
Smith, M
Jacoby, A
Neal, DE
Hamdy, FC
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Dept Social Med, Bristol BS8 2PR, Avon, England
[2] Univ Newcastle, Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, England
[3] Univ Liverpool, Dept Primary Care, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[4] Addenbrookes Hosp, Ctr Oncol, Cambridge, England
[5] Univ Sheffield, Div Clin Sci, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
来源
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS | 2003年 / 24卷 / 03期
关键词
randomized controlled trial; trial participation; patients' perceptions; recruitment; prostate cancer; equipoise;
D O I
10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00020-5
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Recruitment to trials is known to be difficult. Previous research suggests that a crucial factor may be participants' difficulty with the concept of randomization. This study explored patients' perceptions of randomization and reasons for consent or refusal to participate in the ProtecT study (a randomized trial of surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring for localized prostate cancer). In-depth interviews were conducted with 21 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who were invited to participate in the ProtecT treatment trial. Interviewees were selected purposefully from three U.K. clinical centers to ensure the inclusion of similar proportions of those agreeing or refusing random treatment allocation in each of the treatment groups. Interviews explored men's recall and understanding of chance, comparison, and equipoise, and reasons for consent/refusal of randomization and acceptance/rejection of treatment allocation. Data were analyzed methodically using the techniques of constant comparison. Checking of coding and interpretation was assured by four experienced qualitative researchers. Recall and understanding of the major principles of the randomized design were good and were similar for "chance" and "comparison" between those who consented to and refused randomization. Clinical equipoise, however, caused difficulty. Almost all recalled and understood it, but those who found it acceptable tended to consent to randomization and those who could not accept it tended to refuse to participate. Belief in clinical equipoise was key to participants' consent to randomization. Ensuring patients understand and accept equipoise may thus increase their readiness to consent to participate in trials. A priority for future research is to focus on the provision and presentation of suitable and effective trial information, concentrating in particular on the neglected concept of clinical equipoise. (C) 2003 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:272 / 282
页数:11
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] The use of equipoise in clinical trials
    Chard, JA
    Lilford, RJ
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1998, 47 (07) : 891 - 898
  • [2] Quality improvement report - Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study
    Donovan, J
    Mills, N
    Smith, M
    Brindle, L
    Jacoby, A
    Peters, T
    Frankel, S
    Neal, D
    Hamdy, F
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2002, 325 (7367): : 766 - 769
  • [3] Edwards SJ, 1998, Health Technology Assessment, V2, P1
  • [4] Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy
    Fallowfield, LJ
    Jenkins, V
    Brennan, C
    Sawtell, M
    Moynihan, C
    Souhami, RL
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1998, 34 (10) : 1554 - 1559
  • [5] Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial
    Featherstone, K
    Donovan, JL
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 317 (7167): : 1177 - 1180
  • [6] Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it? - The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial
    Featherstone, K
    Donovan, JL
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2002, 55 (05) : 709 - 719
  • [7] EQUIPOISE AND THE ETHICS OF CLINICAL RESEARCH
    FREEDMAN, B
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 317 (03) : 141 - 145
  • [8] Glaser B., 2006, DISCOV GROUNDED THEO
  • [9] Clinical trial enrollers vs nonenrollers: The cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST) recruitment and enrollment assessment in clinical trials (REACT) project
    Gorkin, L
    Schron, EB
    Handshaw, K
    Shea, S
    Kinney, MR
    Branyon, M
    Campion, J
    Bigger, JT
    Sylvia, SC
    Duggan, J
    Stylianou, M
    Lancaster, S
    Ahern, DK
    Follick, MJ
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1996, 17 (01): : 46 - 59
  • [10] Hammersley Martyn., 1983, ETHNOGRAPHY PRINCIPL