The People's Trial: supporting the public's understanding of randomised trials

Elaine Finucane, Ann O'Brien, Shaun Treweek, John Newell, Kishor Das, Sarah Chapman, Paul Wicks, Sandra Galvin, Patricia Healy, Linda Biesty, Katie Gillies, Anna Noel-Storr, Heidi Gardner, Mary Frances O'Reilly, Declan Devane, Elaine Finucane, Ann O'Brien, Shaun Treweek, John Newell, Kishor Das, Sarah Chapman, Paul Wicks, Sandra Galvin, Patricia Healy, Linda Biesty, Katie Gillies, Anna Noel-Storr, Heidi Gardner, Mary Frances O'Reilly, Declan Devane

Abstract

Background: Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial.

Methods: Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial.

Results: Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned.

Conclusion: The People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.

Keywords: Methodology; Online; Public engagement; Randomised trial.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Exemplar question
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The People’s Trial participant numbers by phase
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The Reading Trial consort flow diagram
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Where the public want the results disseminated
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
How the public want the results disseminated
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Age profile of website users

References

    1. May M. (2019) Clinical trial costs go under the microscope. Nat Med. 2019; (06 March 2019). . Accessed 20 July 2021.
    1. Chalmers I, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–165. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1.
    1. Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ. 2018;363:k4645. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4645.
    1. Ioannidis J, GreenlandS., Hlatky M., Khoury J., Macleod M., Moher D., Schulz K. & Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–175. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8.
    1. Gillies K, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Elbourne D, Elliott J, Treweek S. Reducing research waste by promoting informed responses to invitations to participate in clinical trials. Trials. 2019;20(1):613. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3704-x.
    1. Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, Jackson C, Taskila TK, Gardner H. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2):MR000013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.
    1. Walters SJ, Bonacho dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby I, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, Knox C, Nadin B, Rothwell J, Surtees M, Julious SA. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276.
    1. Houghton C, Dowling M, Meskell P, Hunter A, Gardner H, Conway A, Treweek S, Sutcliffe K, Noyes J, Devane D, Nicholas JR, Biesty LM. Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10(10):MR000045.
    1. Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP) (2017) General perceptions and knowledge on clinical research.
    1. Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP) (2017) The participation decision making process
    1. Sheridan R, Martin-Kerry J, Hudson J, Parker A, Bower P, Knapp P. Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials. 2020;21:259. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3.
    1. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, Brozek I, Hughes C. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(2014):42. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-42.
    1. Rivers D, August EM, Sehovic I, Lee GB, Quinn GP. A systematic review of the factors influencing African Americans’ participation in cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;35(2):13–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.03.007.
    1. Ford J, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Am Cancer J. 2007;112(2). 10.1002/cncr.23157.
    1. Skingley A, Bungay H, Clift S, Warden J. Experiences of being a control group: lessons from a UK-based randomized controlled trial of group singing as a health promotion initiative for older people. Health Promotion Int. 2014;29(4):751–758. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dat026;.
    1. Kombe MM, Zulu JM, Michelo C, Sandøy IF. Community perspectives on randomisation and fairness in a cluster randomised controlled trial in Zambia. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0421-7.
    1. The Academy of Medical Sciences (2017) Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential benefits and harms of medicines (online) Available at: . Accessed 1 Nov 2020.
    1. Costello W, Dorris E. Laying the groundwork: building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):96–105. doi: 10.1111/hex.12972.
    1. Addario B, Geissler J, Horn MK, Krebs LU, Maskens D, Oliver K, Plate A, Schwartz E, Willmarth N. Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):41–51. doi: 10.1111/hex.12997.
    1. Skains RM, Kuppermann N, Homme JL, et al. What is the effect of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable parents? Insights from the head CT choice randomized trial. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2020;23(1):63–74. doi: 10.1111/hex.12965.
    1. Oxman AD., Chalmers I. & Austvoll-Dahlgren A., (2018) Informed Health Choices Group. Key concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices. F1000Res;7:1784. 10.12688/f1000research.16771.2.
    1. Cancer Trials Ireland (2020) Just ask 2020: public attitudes to clinical trials. (online) Available at: . Accessed 1 Dec 2020.
    1. Knowles MS. Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1984.
    1. Houle S. An introduction to the fundamentals of randomized controlled trials in pharmacy research. The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy. 2015;68(1):28–32. doi: 10.4212/cjhp.v68i1.1422.
    1. Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research. BJOG. 2018;125(13):1716. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15199.
    1. Snyder E, Cai B, DeMuro C, Morrison MF, Ball W. A new single-item sleep quality scale: results of psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic primary insomnia and depression. J Clin Sleep Med JCSM Off Publ Am Acad Sleep Med. 2018;14(11):1849–1857. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.7478.
    1. National Institutes of Health (2020) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Northwestern University
    1. Riegel B, Hanlon AL, Zhang X, Fleck D, Sayers SL, Goldberg LR, Weintraub WS. What is the best measure of daytime sleepiness in adults with heart failure. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2013;25(5):272–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2012.00784.x.
    1. The Wellcome Trust (2020) Wellcome monitor. (online) Available at: . Accessed 28 Nov 2020.
    1. Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (2020) Understanding Clinical Trials HealthUnlocked. (online) Available at: . Accessed 28 Nov 2020.
    1. Brandberg Y, Johansson H, Bergenmar M. Patients’ knowledge and perceived understanding - associations with consenting to participate in cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2015;2:6–11. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2015.12.001.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner