Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult
Recruitment to randomised trials is often difficult, and many important trials are not mounted because recruitment is thought to be "impossible." Controversial ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) trial embedded within qualitative research. Screening for prostate cancer is h...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ 2002-10, Vol.325 (7367), p.766-770 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 770 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7367 |
container_start_page | 766 |
container_title | BMJ |
container_volume | 325 |
creator | Donovan, Jenny Mills, Nicola Smith, Monica Brindle, Lucy Jacoby, Ann Peters, Tim Frankel, Stephen Neal, David Hamdy, Freddie |
description | Recruitment to randomised trials is often difficult, and many important trials are not mounted because recruitment is thought to be "impossible."
Controversial ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) trial embedded within qualitative research.
Screening for prostate cancer is hotly debated, and evidence from trials about the effectiveness of treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring) is lacking. Mounting a treatment trial is controversial because of past failures and concerns that differences in complications of treatment but not survival make randomisation unacceptable to patients and clinicians, particularly for a trial including monitoring.
In-depth interviews explored interpretation of study information. Audiotape recordings of recruitment appointments enabled scrutiny of content and presentation of study information by recruiters. Initial qualitative findings showed that recruiters had difficulty discussing equipoise and presenting treatments equally; they unknowingly used terminology that was misinterpreted by participants. Findings were used to determine changes to content and presentation of information.
Changes to the order of presenting treatments encouraged emphasis on equivalence, misinterpreted terms were avoided, the non-radical arm was redefined, and randomisation and clinical equipoise were presented more convincingly. The randomisation rate increased from 40% to 70%, all treatments became acceptable, and the three arm trial became the preferred design.
Changes to information and presentation resulted in efficient recruitment acceptable to patients and clinicians. Embedding this controversial trial within qualitative research improved recruitment. Such methods probably have wider applicability and may enable even the most difficult evaluative questions to be tackled. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72153130</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72153130</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2526-bc70ee4eaf096459355c058dc847435c0dbeeceb95dbb82b07e78bfb444ba74d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFUU1v1DAQjRCIrkrvnNCcEBwSnDiOk72hVYFKlQCpnCN_TFpXsZ3aTqX97xxwtitx8sx43nsz84rifU2quqbdF2kfK9qwitOOV7zrXhW7mrOurHtKXxc7MrCh7GvaXxRXMT4SQhrK-6Fjb4uLuqFdS0m_K_7-XsVs0hGMXYJ_RosuQcDFh7SHm1PNuHvQGM29A-E0KO_0qhL4CULOvTURNaRgxBxBHgGtRK03UHpAC8bB00lCJPOMmTqiCOphD7-CT6ju4FPWiPkXIWFMG27yAZRwCsNJMAUUaZvrM8S06mMFB2-3XITjHpaN0Z1wq5NGbMMYlylsFvQOkoclR7klbqQgEbSZJqPWOb0r3kx5arw6v5fFn2_Xd4cf5e3P7zeHr7elaljTlVJxgtiimMjQtWygjCnCeq36lrc0x1oiKpQD01L2jSQceS8n2batFLzV9LL4-MKbV31a85ZjPprCeRYO_RpH3tSM1pTkRvLSqPJNYsBpXIKxec-xJuNm-phNH7Pp42b6mE3PkA9n7lVa1P8BZ4vpP_50sP8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72153130</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Donovan, Jenny ; Mills, Nicola ; Smith, Monica ; Brindle, Lucy ; Jacoby, Ann ; Peters, Tim ; Frankel, Stephen ; Neal, David ; Hamdy, Freddie</creator><creatorcontrib>Donovan, Jenny ; Mills, Nicola ; Smith, Monica ; Brindle, Lucy ; Jacoby, Ann ; Peters, Tim ; Frankel, Stephen ; Neal, David ; Hamdy, Freddie</creatorcontrib><description>Recruitment to randomised trials is often difficult, and many important trials are not mounted because recruitment is thought to be "impossible."
Controversial ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) trial embedded within qualitative research.
Screening for prostate cancer is hotly debated, and evidence from trials about the effectiveness of treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring) is lacking. Mounting a treatment trial is controversial because of past failures and concerns that differences in complications of treatment but not survival make randomisation unacceptable to patients and clinicians, particularly for a trial including monitoring.
In-depth interviews explored interpretation of study information. Audiotape recordings of recruitment appointments enabled scrutiny of content and presentation of study information by recruiters. Initial qualitative findings showed that recruiters had difficulty discussing equipoise and presenting treatments equally; they unknowingly used terminology that was misinterpreted by participants. Findings were used to determine changes to content and presentation of information.
Changes to the order of presenting treatments encouraged emphasis on equivalence, misinterpreted terms were avoided, the non-radical arm was redefined, and randomisation and clinical equipoise were presented more convincingly. The randomisation rate increased from 40% to 70%, all treatments became acceptable, and the three arm trial became the preferred design.
Changes to information and presentation resulted in efficient recruitment acceptable to patients and clinicians. Embedding this controversial trial within qualitative research improved recruitment. Such methods probably have wider applicability and may enable even the most difficult evaluative questions to be tackled.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12364308</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Male ; Patient Selection ; Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention & control ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards ; Research Design ; Terminology as Topic</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 2002-10, Vol.325 (7367), p.766-770</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2526-bc70ee4eaf096459355c058dc847435c0dbeeceb95dbb82b07e78bfb444ba74d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2526-bc70ee4eaf096459355c058dc847435c0dbeeceb95dbb82b07e78bfb444ba74d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12364308$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Donovan, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mills, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brindle, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacoby, Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frankel, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neal, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamdy, Freddie</creatorcontrib><title>Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Recruitment to randomised trials is often difficult, and many important trials are not mounted because recruitment is thought to be "impossible."
Controversial ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) trial embedded within qualitative research.
Screening for prostate cancer is hotly debated, and evidence from trials about the effectiveness of treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring) is lacking. Mounting a treatment trial is controversial because of past failures and concerns that differences in complications of treatment but not survival make randomisation unacceptable to patients and clinicians, particularly for a trial including monitoring.
In-depth interviews explored interpretation of study information. Audiotape recordings of recruitment appointments enabled scrutiny of content and presentation of study information by recruiters. Initial qualitative findings showed that recruiters had difficulty discussing equipoise and presenting treatments equally; they unknowingly used terminology that was misinterpreted by participants. Findings were used to determine changes to content and presentation of information.
Changes to the order of presenting treatments encouraged emphasis on equivalence, misinterpreted terms were avoided, the non-radical arm was redefined, and randomisation and clinical equipoise were presented more convincingly. The randomisation rate increased from 40% to 70%, all treatments became acceptable, and the three arm trial became the preferred design.
Changes to information and presentation resulted in efficient recruitment acceptable to patients and clinicians. Embedding this controversial trial within qualitative research improved recruitment. Such methods probably have wider applicability and may enable even the most difficult evaluative questions to be tackled.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention & control</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Terminology as Topic</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFUU1v1DAQjRCIrkrvnNCcEBwSnDiOk72hVYFKlQCpnCN_TFpXsZ3aTqX97xxwtitx8sx43nsz84rifU2quqbdF2kfK9qwitOOV7zrXhW7mrOurHtKXxc7MrCh7GvaXxRXMT4SQhrK-6Fjb4uLuqFdS0m_K_7-XsVs0hGMXYJ_RosuQcDFh7SHm1PNuHvQGM29A-E0KO_0qhL4CULOvTURNaRgxBxBHgGtRK03UHpAC8bB00lCJPOMmTqiCOphD7-CT6ju4FPWiPkXIWFMG27yAZRwCsNJMAUUaZvrM8S06mMFB2-3XITjHpaN0Z1wq5NGbMMYlylsFvQOkoclR7klbqQgEbSZJqPWOb0r3kx5arw6v5fFn2_Xd4cf5e3P7zeHr7elaljTlVJxgtiimMjQtWygjCnCeq36lrc0x1oiKpQD01L2jSQceS8n2batFLzV9LL4-MKbV31a85ZjPprCeRYO_RpH3tSM1pTkRvLSqPJNYsBpXIKxec-xJuNm-phNH7Pp42b6mE3PkA9n7lVa1P8BZ4vpP_50sP8</recordid><startdate>20021005</startdate><enddate>20021005</enddate><creator>Donovan, Jenny</creator><creator>Mills, Nicola</creator><creator>Smith, Monica</creator><creator>Brindle, Lucy</creator><creator>Jacoby, Ann</creator><creator>Peters, Tim</creator><creator>Frankel, Stephen</creator><creator>Neal, David</creator><creator>Hamdy, Freddie</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20021005</creationdate><title>Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult</title><author>Donovan, Jenny ; Mills, Nicola ; Smith, Monica ; Brindle, Lucy ; Jacoby, Ann ; Peters, Tim ; Frankel, Stephen ; Neal, David ; Hamdy, Freddie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2526-bc70ee4eaf096459355c058dc847435c0dbeeceb95dbb82b07e78bfb444ba74d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention & control</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Terminology as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Donovan, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mills, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brindle, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacoby, Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frankel, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neal, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamdy, Freddie</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Donovan, Jenny</au><au>Mills, Nicola</au><au>Smith, Monica</au><au>Brindle, Lucy</au><au>Jacoby, Ann</au><au>Peters, Tim</au><au>Frankel, Stephen</au><au>Neal, David</au><au>Hamdy, Freddie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2002-10-05</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>325</volume><issue>7367</issue><spage>766</spage><epage>770</epage><pages>766-770</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><abstract>Recruitment to randomised trials is often difficult, and many important trials are not mounted because recruitment is thought to be "impossible."
Controversial ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) trial embedded within qualitative research.
Screening for prostate cancer is hotly debated, and evidence from trials about the effectiveness of treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, and monitoring) is lacking. Mounting a treatment trial is controversial because of past failures and concerns that differences in complications of treatment but not survival make randomisation unacceptable to patients and clinicians, particularly for a trial including monitoring.
In-depth interviews explored interpretation of study information. Audiotape recordings of recruitment appointments enabled scrutiny of content and presentation of study information by recruiters. Initial qualitative findings showed that recruiters had difficulty discussing equipoise and presenting treatments equally; they unknowingly used terminology that was misinterpreted by participants. Findings were used to determine changes to content and presentation of information.
Changes to the order of presenting treatments encouraged emphasis on equivalence, misinterpreted terms were avoided, the non-radical arm was redefined, and randomisation and clinical equipoise were presented more convincingly. The randomisation rate increased from 40% to 70%, all treatments became acceptable, and the three arm trial became the preferred design.
Changes to information and presentation resulted in efficient recruitment acceptable to patients and clinicians. Embedding this controversial trial within qualitative research improved recruitment. Such methods probably have wider applicability and may enable even the most difficult evaluative questions to be tackled.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>12364308</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
ispartof | BMJ, 2002-10, Vol.325 (7367), p.766-770 |
issn | 0959-8138 1756-1833 1468-5833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72153130 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Bioethics Humans Informed Consent Male Patient Selection Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention & control Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards Research Design Terminology as Topic |
title | Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T18%3A32%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality%20improvement%20report:%20Improving%20design%20and%20conduct%20of%20randomised%20trials%20by%20embedding%20them%20in%20qualitative%20research:%20ProtecT%20(prostate%20testing%20for%20cancer%20and%20treatment)%20study.%20Commentary:%20presenting%20unbiased%20information%20to%20patients%20can%20be%20difficult&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Donovan,%20Jenny&rft.date=2002-10-05&rft.volume=325&rft.issue=7367&rft.spage=766&rft.epage=770&rft.pages=766-770&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1756-1833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72153130%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72153130&rft_id=info:pmid/12364308&rfr_iscdi=true |