Patients' and Public's Preferences for Explaining Randomisation
Author Information
Author(s): V. Jenkins, L. Leach, L. Fallowfield, K. Nicholls, A. Newsham
Primary Institution: Cancer Research (UK) Psychosocial Oncology Group, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex
Hypothesis
Is there a preferred way to describe the randomisation process that may facilitate discussions about clinical trials of cancer therapy?
Conclusion
The study found that patients and the public preferred clearer, less technical descriptions of randomisation compared to those commonly used by clinicians.
Supporting Evidence
- Patients and the public preferred statements that were clear and concise.
- The analogy of 'tossing a coin' was widely disliked among participants.
- Clinicians often used descriptions that were not preferred by patients or the public.
Takeaway
When doctors explain how patients are chosen for clinical trials, they should use simple language that everyone can understand, instead of confusing terms.
Methodology
A questionnaire-based survey was conducted with members of the public, cancer patients, and oncologists to assess preferences for descriptions of randomisation.
Potential Biases
Potential bias in responses due to the convenience sampling method and the subjective nature of preferences.
Limitations
The study relied on convenience sampling, which may not represent the broader population.
Participant Demographics
341 lay people without cancer, 200 patients with cancer, and 200 oncologists.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website