Dataset Information

Communicating the results of research: how do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results.

Design

Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Cornwall, southwest England.

Participants

Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS).

Method

Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study.

Results

In March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web.

Conclusion

Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting.

SUBMITTER: Dalal H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5060540 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Communicating the results of research: how do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?

Dalal Hasnain H Wingham Jennifer J Pritchard Colin C Northey Sharon S Evans Philip P Taylor Rod S RS Campbell John J

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20091110 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results.<h4>Design</h4>Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Cornwall, southwest England.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS).<h4>Method</h4>Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial w ...[more]

PMID: 19906214

Similar Datasets

Project description:Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017-2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non-study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45-1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant's preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundReadability is important to consider when developing informed consent communications for prospective research participants, but not the most important consideration. Other factors to consider relate to learning preferences and literacy needs of people recruited to participate in research, as these factors can influence understanding of consent communications. To promote understanding among prospective participants, researchers should take a human-centered approach to develop consent communications.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore how factors related to readability, topic, and participant demographic characteristics play into preferences for digital health research consent material. These factors are important to consider as not attending to some details that matter to a specific subgroup of prospective participants may systematically exclude people from research.MethodsPeople eligible to participate in a digital health study were recruited to review 31 paragraph length sections of a consent form, referred to as "text snippets," for an existing institutional review board-approved digital health study. Participants (N=79) were surveyed and asked to choose between 2 variations of the text snippets, either indicating a preference for the institutional review board-approved original or a version that was modified to improve readability.ResultsA slim majority of participants provided feedback about the snippets (n=44; 55%). Our qualitative analysis of the feedback found that participants preferred shorter snippets, in general, but the snippets also elicited new questions not addressed by the original consent material. This observation is supported by our quantitative analysis, which found that when the character length of the original was longer, participants were less likely to prefer the original (P<.001) and more likely to prefer the modified text by a factor of 1.20 times (P=.04), and particularly for snippets explaining study risks (P=.03). Our analysis also found significant differences in participant demographic characteristics. For example, older participants tended to prefer the original more than younger participants, by a factor of 1.95 times (P=.004). The results present illustrative examples of how factors related to sex, age, physical activity, and ethnicity all play into preference for consent communication.ConclusionsThe findings point toward new ways of evaluating informed consent communication: (1) for responsiveness to specific prospective participant populations, and (2) effectiveness at eliciting informed questions from people considering participation. We discuss how creating partnerships with prospective participants to prototype informed consent materials, specifically study procedures and risks, can be a way to identify those details before launching a study. Furthermore, future research should go beyond "readability" to explore alternate measures of evaluating consent materials, such as the likelihood that the consent material and communication procedures will elicit "informed questions" for the research team.

Project description:BackgroundThe process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant's autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process.MethodsResearch staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically.ResultsResearch participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources.ConclusionsResearch participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Dataset Information

Communicating the results of research: how do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Communicating the results of research: how do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets