Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial - PubMed (original) (raw)

Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

Krysia Canvin et al. Trials. 2006.

Abstract

Background: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy.

Methods: In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package.

Results: Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate.

Conclusion: Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Reasons for agreeing or declining to participate SANAD.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chard JA, Lilford RJ. The use of equipoise in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47:891–98. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00153-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Prescott R, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, Colthart IR, Ross S, Shepherd SM, Russell D. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3 - PubMed
    1. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to Participation in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:1143–1156. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00141-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Robinson EJ, Kerr C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Edwards S. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:811–824. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00255-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins V, Brennan C, Sawtell M, Moynihan C, Souhami RL. Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:1544–1559. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(98)00193-2. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources