Hughes John Gareth, Russell Wanda, Breckons Matthew, Richardson Janet, Lloyd-Williams Mari, Molassiotis Alex
Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, UCLH NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Complement Ther Med. 2014 Oct;22(5):903-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2014.07.005. Epub 2014 Jul 19.
In clinical trials where participants are likely to be able to distinguish between true and sham interventions, informing participants that they may receive a sham intervention increases the likelihood of participants 'breaking the blind' and invalidating trial findings. The present study explored participants' perceptions of the consent process in a sham controlled acupressure trial which did not explicitly indicate participants may receive a sham intervention.
Nested qualitative study within a randomised sham controlled trial of acupressure wristbands for chemotherapy-related nausea. Convenience sample of 26 patients participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts analysed thematically using framework analysis.
Study conducted within three geographical sites in the UK: Manchester, Liverpool, and Plymouth.
All participants indicated that they believed they were fully informed when providing written consent to participate in the trial. Participants' perceived it was acceptable to employ a sham intervention within the trial of acupressure wristbands without informing potential participants that they may receive a sham treatment. Despite the fact that participants were not informed that one of the treatment arms was a sham intervention the majority indicated they assumed one of the treatment arms would be placebo.
Many trials of acupuncture and acupressure do not inform participants they may receive a sham intervention. The current study indicates patients' perceive this approach to the consent process as acceptable. However, the fact participants assume one treatment may be placebo threatens the methodological basis for utilising this approach to the consent process.
在参与者可能能够区分真实干预和虚假干预的临床试验中,告知参与者他们可能会接受虚假干预会增加参与者“破坏盲法”并使试验结果无效的可能性。本研究探讨了在一项假对照指压试验中参与者对同意过程的看法,该试验未明确表明参与者可能会接受虚假干预。
在一项关于化疗相关恶心的指压腕带随机假对照试验中的嵌套定性研究。26名患者的便利样本参与了半结构化访谈。访谈进行了录音并逐字转录。使用框架分析对转录本进行主题分析。
在英国的三个地理地点进行研究:曼彻斯特、利物浦和普利茅斯。
所有参与者表示,他们认为在提供书面同意参与试验时已得到充分告知。参与者认为在指压腕带试验中采用虚假干预而不告知潜在参与者他们可能会接受虚假治疗是可以接受的。尽管参与者未被告知其中一个治疗组是虚假干预,但大多数人表示他们认为其中一个治疗组会是安慰剂。
许多针灸和指压试验未告知参与者他们可能会接受虚假干预。当前研究表明患者认为这种同意过程的方法是可以接受的。然而,参与者认为一种治疗可能是安慰剂这一事实威胁到了采用这种同意过程方法的方法学基础。