4.0 Article

Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey

Journal

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 322, Issue 7285, Pages 519-523

Publisher

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7285.519

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess the extent to which consumers are involved in the work of clinical trial coordinating centres in the United Kingdom and the nature of consumers' involvement in randomised trials coordinated by these centres. Design National surveys using structured questionnaires with some open ended sections. Setting 103 clinical trial coordinating cent-es in the United Kingdom identified through a database assembled in 1997 by the NHS clinical trials adviser. Participants Named contacts at 62 coordinating centres and investigators in 60 trials that were identified as involving consumers. Main outcome measures Number of coordinating centres and number of trials in which consumers were involved and the nature of consumers' involvement Results Of the 62 eligible centres, 23 reported that consumers had already been involved in their work, and most respondents were positive about this involvement 17 centres planned to involve consumers. 15 centres had no plans to involve consumers, but only four of these considered such involvement irrelevant. Responses from investigators about the 48 individual trials were mostly positive, with respondents commenting that input from consumers had helped refine research questions, improve the quality of patient information, and make the trial more relevant to the needs of patients. Conclusions Consumer involvement in the design and conduct of controlled trials seems to be growing and seems to be welcomed by most researchers, Such involvement seems likely to improve the relevance to consumers of the questions addressed and the results obtained in controlled trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available