Prout Hayley, Butler Christopher, Kinnersley Paul, Robling Mike, Hood Kerenza, Tudor-Jones Rhiannedd
Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health, University of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
Fam Pract. 2003 Dec;20(6):675-81. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg609.
For findings of randomized controlled trials in primary care to be applicable, both the sample of clinicians implementing the trial and the recruited patients should be as representative as possible. The processes of conducting trials should be made "user-friendly" to clinician investigators in order to maximize their participation in research. Formal evaluations of trial implementation are unusual. This study reports clinicians' perspectives on acting as a clinician investigator in a randomized controlled trial (the SAVIT study) in general practice.
Our purpose was to explore clinicians' accounts of taking part in a randomized controlled trial in which subjects were recruited opportunistically during general practice consultations.
Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine GPs and one practice nurse practising in the Bro Taf area of South Wales who recruited children into the SAVIT study. A structured interview guide was used and data were analysed using the qualitative method of pattern coding.
Major emerging themes included recruitment difficulties and concerns about the safety of the study medication. Participants also outlined positive aspects of the study (clarity and simplicity of the study, potential benefits to clinicians and patients and study team follow-up of recruited patients). Recommendations for possible improvements in study implementation included the simplification and reduction of patient reading materials and improved presentation of study materials.
Difficulty in recruiting patients was the most frequently mentioned problem by clinician investigators. Insufficient time in the consultation was perceived as the main barrier. Ingredients of successful trial implementation include good organization, simple documentation and study procedures, and the ability to allay concerns about patient safety. Findings from this evaluation may assist researchers in the design and implementation of future community-based randomized controlled trials.
为使初级保健中随机对照试验的结果具有适用性,实施试验的临床医生样本和招募的患者都应尽可能具有代表性。试验过程应做到对临床研究人员“用户友好”,以最大限度地提高他们对研究的参与度。对试验实施进行正式评估的情况并不常见。本研究报告了临床医生对在一项全科医疗随机对照试验(SAVIT研究)中担任临床研究人员的看法。
我们的目的是探究临床医生参与一项随机对照试验的经历,该试验在全科医疗咨询期间机会性地招募受试者。
对在南威尔士布罗塔夫地区执业的9名全科医生和1名执业护士进行了个人半结构化访谈,他们将儿童纳入了SAVIT研究。使用了结构化访谈指南,并采用模式编码的定性方法对数据进行分析。
主要出现的主题包括招募困难以及对研究药物安全性的担忧。参与者还概述了该研究的积极方面(研究的清晰度和简单性、对临床医生和患者的潜在益处以及研究团队对招募患者的随访)。关于可能改进研究实施的建议包括简化和减少患者阅读材料以及改进研究材料的呈现方式。
招募患者困难是临床研究人员最常提到的问题。咨询时间不足被视为主要障碍。成功实施试验的要素包括良好的组织、简单的文档和研究程序,以及消除对患者安全担忧的能力。该评估的结果可能有助于研究人员设计和实施未来基于社区的随机对照试验。