Author
Listed:
- Leila Rooshenas
- Daisy Elliott
- Julia Wade
- Marcus Jepson
- Sangeetha Paramasivan
- Sean Strong
- Caroline Wilson
- David Beard
- Jane M Blazeby
- Alison Birtle
- Alison Halliday
- Chris A Rogers
- Rob Stein
- Jenny L Donovan
- ACST-2 study group
- By-Band-Sleeve study group
- Chemorad study group
- CSAW study group
- Optima prelim study group
- POUT study group
Abstract
Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians’ difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians’ reported intentions compared with their actual practices. Methods and Findings: Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Conclusions: Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians’ personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience. In a qualitative synthesis from six randomized controlled trials, Leila Rooshenas and colleagues examine how clinicians convey equipoise during recruitment for clinical trials.Why Was This Study Done?: What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: What Do These Findings Mean?:
Suggested Citation
Leila Rooshenas & Daisy Elliott & Julia Wade & Marcus Jepson & Sangeetha Paramasivan & Sean Strong & Caroline Wilson & David Beard & Jane M Blazeby & Alison Birtle & Alison Halliday & Chris A Rogers &, 2016.
"Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials,"
PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002147
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002147
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
- Tyskbo, Daniel & Nygren, Jens, 2024.
"Reconfiguration of uncertainty: Introducing AI for prediction of mortality at the emergency department,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 359(C).
- Kroll, Camille & Murphy, Julia & Poston, Lindsay & You, Whitney & Premkumar, Ashish, 2022.
"Cultivating the ideal obstetrical patient: How physicians-in-training describe pain associated with childbirth,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
- Tzu-Jung Chou & Yu-Rui Wu & Jaw-Shiun Tsai & Shao-Yi Cheng & Chien-An Yao & Jen-Kuei Peng & Tai-Yuan Chiu & Hsien-Liang Huang, 2021.
"Telehealth-Based Family Conferences with Implementation of Shared Decision Making Concepts and Humanistic Communication Approach: A Mixed-Methods Prospective Cohort Study,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-12, October.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.