IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0021604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communication about Children's Clinical Trials as Observed and Experienced: Qualitative Study of Parents and Practitioners

Author

Listed:
  • Valerie Shilling
  • Paula R Williamson
  • Helen Hickey
  • Emma Sowden
  • Michael W Beresford
  • Rosalind L Smyth
  • Bridget Young

Abstract

Background: Recruiting children to clinical trials is perceived to be challenging. To identify ways to optimise recruitment and its conduct, we compared how parents and practitioners described their experiences of recruitment to clinical trials. Methods and Findings: This qualitative study ran alongside four children's clinical trials in 11 UK research sites. It compared analyses of semi-structured interviews with analyses of audio-recordings of practitioner-family dialogue during trial recruitment discussions. Parents from 59 families were interviewed; 41 had participated in audio-recorded recruitment discussions. 31 practitioners were interviewed. Parents said little in the recruitment discussions contributing a median 16% of the total dialogue and asking a median of one question. Despite this, parents reported a positive experience of the trial approach describing a sense of comfort and safety. Even if they declined or if the discussion took place at a difficult time, parents understood the need to approach them and spoke of the value of research. Some parents viewed participation as an ‘exciting’ opportunity. By contrast, practitioners often worried that approaching families about research burdened families. Some practitioners implied that recruiting to clinical trials was something which they found aversive. Many were also concerned about the amount of information they had to provide and believed this overwhelmed families. Whilst some practitioners thought the trial information leaflets were of little use to families, parents reported that they used and valued the leaflets. However, both parties agreed that the leaflets were too long and wanted them to be more reader-friendly. Conclusions: Parents were more positive about being approached to enter their child into a clinical trial than practitioners anticipated. The concerns of some practitioners, that parents would be overburdened, were unfounded. Educating practitioners about how families perceive clinical trials and providing them with ‘moral’ support in approaching families may benefit paediatric research and, ultimately, patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerie Shilling & Paula R Williamson & Helen Hickey & Emma Sowden & Michael W Beresford & Rosalind L Smyth & Bridget Young, 2011. "Communication about Children's Clinical Trials as Observed and Experienced: Qualitative Study of Parents and Practitioners," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0021604
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021604
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021604&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0021604?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixon-Woods, Mary & Ashcroft, Richard E. & Jackson, Clare J. & Tobin, Martin D. & Kivits, Joelle & Burton, Paul R. & Samani, Nilesh J., 2007. "Beyond "misunderstanding": Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2212-2222, December.
    2. Brown, R.F & Butow, P.N & Ellis, P & Boyle, F & Tattersall, M.H.N, 2004. "Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials:: describing current practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(12), pages 2445-2457, June.
    3. Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter & Hann, Mark, 2002. "The impact of general practitioners' patient-centredness on patients' post-consultation satisfaction and enablement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 283-299, July.
    4. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    5. Terry P Klassen & Lisa Hartling & Jonathan C Craig & Martin Offringa, 2008. "Children Are Not Just Small Adults: The Urgent Need for High-Quality Trial Evidence in Children," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-3, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.
    1. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    2. Rathert, Cheryl & Mittler, Jessica N. & Vogus, Timothy J. & Lee, Yuna S.H., 2023. "Better outcomes through patient – Provider therapeutic connections? An exploratory study of proposed mediating variables," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    3. Hubert, Philipp & Abdel Hadi, Sascha & Mojzisch, Andreas & Häusser, Jan Alexander, 2022. "The effects of organizational climate on adherence to guidelines for COVID-19 prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    4. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    5. Augustine Adomah-Afari & Theophilus Maloreh-Nyamekye, 2019. "Enhancing Patient Satisfaction - Relationship Marketing Strategies of Two Specialist Hospitals in Accra, Ghana," International Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(2), pages 213-231, June.
    6. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    7. Sarradon-Eck, Aline & Sakoyan, Juliette & Desclaux, Alice & Mancini, Julien & Genre, Dominique & Julian-Reynier, Claire, 2012. ""They should take time": Disclosure of clinical trial results as part of a social relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 873-882.
    8. Putniņa, Aivita, 2013. "Bioethics and power: Informed consent procedures in post-socialist Latvia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 340-344.
    9. Elizabeth R. Eisenhauer & Alan R. Tait & Soo Young Rieh & Cynthia M. Arslanian-Engoren, 2019. "Participants’ Understanding of Informed Consent for Biobanking: A Systematic Review," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 28(1), pages 30-51, January.
    10. Zandbelt, Linda C. & Smets, Ellen M.A. & Oort, Frans J. & de Haes, Hanneke C.J.M., 2005. "Coding patient-centred behaviour in the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 661-671, August.
    11. Achim Siegel & Anna T. Ehmann & Ingo Meyer & Oliver Gröne & Wilhelm Niebling & Peter Martus & Monika A. Rieger, 2019. "PEN-13: A New Generic 13-Item Questionnaire for Measuring Patient Enablement (German Version)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1, December.
    12. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    13. Mara Gorli & Serena Barello, 2021. "Patient Centredness, Values, Equity and Sustainability: Professional, Organizational and Institutional Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-7, November.
    14. Jacobi Elliott & Heather McNeil & Jessica Ashbourne & Kelsey Huson & Veronique Boscart & Paul Stolee, 2016. "Engaging Older Adults in Health Care Decision-Making: A Realist Synthesis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 383-393, October.
    15. Mwale, Shadreck, 2020. "‘Becoming-with’ a repeat healthy volunteer: Managing and negotiating trust among repeat healthy volunteers in commercial clinical drug trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    16. Peter J Gill & Kay Yee Wang & David Mant & Lisa Hartling & Carl Heneghan & Rafael Perera & Terry Klassen & Anthony Harnden, 2011. "The Evidence Base for Interventions Delivered to Children in Primary Care: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-9, August.
    17. Bower, Peter & King, Michael & Nazareth, Irwin & Lampe, Fiona & Sibbald, Bonnie, 2005. "Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 685-695, August.
    18. Purva Abhyankar & Barbara A. Summers & Galina Velikova & Hilary L. Bekker, 2014. "Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 567-582, July.
    19. Stephen L Brown & Demian Whiting & Hannah G Fielden & Pooja Saini & Helen Beesley & Christopher Holcombe & Susan Holcombe & Lyn Greenhalgh & Louise Fairburn & Peter Salmon, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, May.
    20. Hallowell, Nina & Cooke, Sarah & Crawford, Gill & Lucassen, Anneke & Parker, Michael, 2009. "Distinguishing research from clinical care in cancer genetics: Theoretical justifications and practical strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2010-2017, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pone00:0021604. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.