Darbyshire Julie Lorraine, Price Hermione Clare
Diabetes Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Open. 2012 Sep 24;2(5). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001252. Print 2012.
To identify the most appropriate format for results dissemination to maximise understanding of trial results.
Qualitative.
Of the original 58 4-T trial centres, 34 agreed to take part in this ancillary research.
All participants from these centres were eligible. All 343 participants were sent questionnaires.
The low response rate meant that we were unable to make any firm conclusions about the patients' preferred method of dissemination; however, we were able to comment on the level of understanding demonstrated by the trial participants.
All 40 (12%) returned questionnaires were received from 15 centres. We received no questionnaires from over half of the centres. The questionnaires which were returned demonstrated broad satisfaction with the results letter, general enthusiasm for the trial and a variable level of understanding of the results; however, there was a high proportion of responders who were not clear on why the research was undertaken or what the results meant.
The low response rate may be related to delays during the trial set-up process suggesting that interest in a study quickly wanes for both patients and centres. From this we deduce that rapid dissemination of results is needed if it is to have any impact at all. The responders are likely to reflect a biased cohort who were both enthusiastic about the research and who had a good experience during their 3 years in the 4-T trial. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that the overview is positive. That this population was still not fully informed about the purpose of the research would seem to confirm a low level of understanding among the general public which we suggest should be addressed during the consent process.
确定最合适的结果传播形式,以最大限度地增进对试验结果的理解。
定性研究。
在最初的58个4-T试验中心中,34个同意参与这项辅助研究。
来自这些中心的所有参与者均符合条件。向所有343名参与者发送了问卷。
低回复率意味着我们无法就患者偏爱的传播方式得出任何确凿结论;然而,我们能够对试验参与者所表现出的理解程度发表评论。
共收到来自15个中心的40份(12%)返回问卷。超过半数的中心未返回问卷。返回的问卷显示对结果信普遍满意,对试验总体热情较高,对结果的理解程度不一;然而,有很大比例的回复者不清楚开展该研究的原因或结果意味着什么。
低回复率可能与试验设置过程中的延迟有关,这表明患者和中心对研究的兴趣很快就会消退。由此我们推断,如果想要产生任何影响,就需要迅速传播结果。回复者可能代表了一个有偏差的群体,他们既对研究充满热情,又在4-T试验的3年中有着良好的体验。因此,总体评价呈积极或许并不奇怪。但这一群体仍未完全了解研究目的,这似乎证实了普通公众的理解水平较低,我们建议在知情同意过程中应对此加以解决。