South, Annabelle; Bailey, Julia; Bierer, Barbara E; Burnett, Eva; Cragg, William J; Diaz-Montana, Carlos; Gillies, Katie; ... Copas, Andrew J; + view all South, Annabelle; Bailey, Julia; Bierer, Barbara E; Burnett, Eva; Cragg, William J; Diaz-Montana, Carlos; Gillies, Katie; Isaacs, Talia; Joharatnam-Hogan, Nalinie; Snowdon, Claire; Sydes, Matthew R; Copas, Andrew J; - view fewer (2023) Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial. Clinical Trials 10.1177/17407745231186088. (In press).

Preview

PDF south-et-al-2023-site-staff-perspectives-on-communicating-trial-results-to-participants-cost-and-feasibility-results.pdf - Published Version Download (867kB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Download activity - last month

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Archive Staff Only

View Item