IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0233294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient preferences when searching for clinical trials and adherence of study records to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance in key registry data fields

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas M Schindler
  • Frank Grieger
  • Anna Zak
  • Ramona Rorig
  • Kavya Chowdary Konka
  • Anna Ellsworth
  • Christopher Pfitzer
  • Keir Hodge
  • Christine Crandall
  • on behalf of the TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative

Abstract

ClinicalTrials.gov was started with the intention to create a consumer-friendly database for patients and others in search of information on clinical trials. However, there is no research on whether the content of ClinicalTrials.gov aligns with patient preferences. The TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative convened patient advisory boards and conducted a global online survey (N = 1070) to determine patient preferences when searching for clinical trials for participation. Patient feedback and ClinicalTrials.gov guidance documents were used to construct instruments to assess patient focus and guidance adherence of the Brief Title (a short lay title of the clinical trial) and Brief Summary (a high-level summary of study features) data fields in a representative sample (N = 346) of ClinicalTrials.gov records of interventional trials. When searching for clinical trials, survey participants rated condition (66.4%), trial location (57.0%), trial dates (52.9%), age and gender (48.6%), and health measurements (i.e., what the study measures) (45.5%) as the most important items. When presented with a list of trials from an initial search, participants saw condition, brief summary, study drug name, and brief title as the most helpful items. In a Brief Title, they wanted condition, health measurements, participant age, and study drug name. For Brief Summaries, participants preferred additional information on treatment duration, condition, study goal, health measurements, and frequency of visits. The assessment of patient focus in a representative sample of current ClinicalTrials.gov records showed that patient focus was underdeveloped as study records achieved only 52% (brief titles) and 50% (brief summaries) of the best possible score. The analysis of adherence to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance showed better scores (brief titles 69%, brief summaries 66%). We identified key information elements for registry users when evaluating clinical trials for participation. We found that aspects of patient focus are not common in current ClinicalTrials.gov entries. To support more user-friendly study records, we developed a tool to assess the quality of the plain language fields in study records prior to submission.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas M Schindler & Frank Grieger & Anna Zak & Ramona Rorig & Kavya Chowdary Konka & Anna Ellsworth & Christopher Pfitzer & Keir Hodge & Christine Crandall & on behalf of the TransCelerate Clinical R, 2020. "Patient preferences when searching for clinical trials and adherence of study records to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance in key registry data fields," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233294
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233294
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233294&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0233294?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. Roderik F Viergever & Davina Ghersi, 2011. "The Quality of Registration of Clinical Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-8, February.
    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. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    2. Wei-Yen Hsu, 2013. "A Practical Approach Based on Analytic Deformable Algorithm for Scenic Image Registration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Wei-Yen Hsu, 2012. "Registration Accuracy and Quality of Real-Life Images," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-13, July.

    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:pone00:0233294. 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.