IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0211338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Tell me what you suggest, and let’s do that, doctor”: Patient deliberation time during informal decision-making in clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Haruka Nakada
  • Sachie Yoshida
  • Kaori Muto

Abstract

Informed consent is an essential part of an ethical clinical trial; to this end, researchers have developed several interventions to promote participants’ full understanding of trials and thereby improve the consent process. However, few empirical studies have examined how patients make the decision of whether to give consent. The objective of this study, therefore, is to analyze patients’ decision-making process when participating in clinical trials. We conduct an internet survey (n = 2,045) and interview data analysis (n = 40) with patients and categorize respondents into three types of participants: active, passive, and non-participation. Our results show that patients often make informal and quick decisions before medical staff provide them with relevant information during the informed consent process. For example, 55.9% of patients received initial information on clinical trials from an online article or web advertising, and 54.5% consulted no one about whether to participate in the clinical trial before making a decision. Only 20.7% of respondents subjectively spent time making the decision whether to participate; 43.0% of patients who said that they “spent time” coming to a decision took four or more days to reach a decision, while 8.3% of people who “did not spend time” making a decision took this among of time. Based on these results, we were able to break patients’ decision-making process into four steps: first contact, informal decision making, relevant information, and formal decision making. Our results show that patients are most likely to make a decision based on the first information they receive on the clinical trial, whatever the source. To this end, having a list of questions for potential participants to ask researchers would be useful in helping better collecting information of clinical trials. In addition, research teams should give patients more than four days to decide between providing them with relevant information and obtaining written consent, even if the patient seems to make a quick decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Haruka Nakada & Sachie Yoshida & Kaori Muto, 2019. "“Tell me what you suggest, and let’s do that, doctor”: Patient deliberation time during informal decision-making in clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0211338
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211338
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211338&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0211338?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0211338. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.