What do they know?: a content analysis of women's perceptions of trial information
- 22 November 2004
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Vol. 111 (12) , 1341-1345
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00293.x
Abstract
Objective To examine interpretations of study information by women participating in ORACLE, a trial of antibiotics in preterm labour.Design Questionnaire survey sent to women recruited to the ORACLE trial.Setting United Kingdom.Population A questionnaire was sent to 3074 ORACLE participants in a purposively selected sample of 55 collaborating maternity units, chosen to reflect a range of regions and of district general and teaching hospitals.Methods Content analysis was applied to verbatim text provided in response to an open question. Responses were also compared with a framework based on key points about the purpose of ORACLE. Closed questions were analysed using descriptive statistics.Main outcome measures Participants' interpretations of the purpose of the study.Results A response rate of 61% was achieved, and 1462 participants provided written answers to a specific question on why the study was being carried out. Content analysis suggested that the information leaflet was highly valued as a source of information about the trial. There was evidence that women's interpretations of the purpose of the trial were not identical to those that the investigators intended. Of the five key points about the trial described in the information leaflet, 400 (27%) participants reported one key point, 550 (38%) two key points, 229 (16%) three key points and 23 (1.5%) four key points. None reported five key points and it was not possible to classify 46 responses (3%). Vague, confused understanding or poor recall were evident in 204 (14%) of responses.Conclusion Although the ORACLE trial was run as a model of good practice at the time, this study suggests that it may not be possible to demonstrate full understanding of trial purpose and design by all participants. Emphasis should be on the provision of full information that involves consumers in its design and evaluation.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trialsSocial Science & Medicine, 2004
- Do mothers remember key events during labor?American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2003
- Quality improvement report Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficultBMJ, 2002
- Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leafletsSocial Science & Medicine, 2001
- Broad-spectrum antibiotics for spontaneous preterm labour: the ORACLE II randomised trialThe Lancet, 2001
- Broad-spectrum antibiotics for preterm, prelabour rupture of fetal membranes: the ORACLE I randomised trialThe Lancet, 2001
- Protective steering: a grounded theory study of the processes by which midwives facilitate informed choices during pregnancyJournal of Advanced Nursing, 1999
- Informed consentBMJ, 1997
- Patient perception of a long-term clinical trial: Experience using a close-out questionnaire in the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD) trialControlled Clinical Trials, 1994
- Reasons for entry into and understanding of HIV/AIDS clinical trials: A preliminary studyAIDS Care, 1994