Murtagh M J, Thomson R G, May C R, Rapley T, Heaven B R, Graham R H, Kaner E F, Stobbart L, Eccles M P
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Jun;16(3):224-9. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.018499.
To understand participants' experiences and understandings of the interventions in the trial of a computerised decision support tool in patients with atrial fibrillation being considered for anti-coagulation treatment.
Qualitative process evaluation carried out alongside the trial: non-participant observation and semistructured interviews.
30 participants aged >60 years taking part in the trial of a computerised decision support tool.
Qualitative evidence provided the rationale to undertake a decision to discontinue one arm of the trial on the basis that the intervention in that arm, a standard gamble values elicitation exercise was causing confusion and was unlikely to produce valid data on participant values.
Qualitative methods used alongside a trial allow an understanding of the process and progress of a trial, and provide evidence to intervene in the trial if necessary, including evidence for the rationale to discontinue an intervention arm of the trial.
了解在考虑接受抗凝治疗的房颤患者中使用计算机化决策支持工具的试验中,参与者对干预措施的体验和理解。
在试验过程中进行定性过程评估:非参与观察和半结构化访谈。
30名年龄大于60岁的参与者,参与计算机化决策支持工具的试验。
定性证据为决定停止试验的一个组提供了依据,因为该组的干预措施,即标准博弈价值诱导练习造成了混乱,并且不太可能产生关于参与者价值观的有效数据。
与试验同时使用的定性方法有助于理解试验的过程和进展,并在必要时为干预试验提供证据,包括为停止试验的一个干预组提供依据的证据。