The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study

Abstract Background There has been little research to investigate whether the appearance of paper patient information leaflets (PILs) used to describe research studies to potential participants influences their decision to take part. Embedding a study within a trial (SWAT) is an efficient way of ans...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lucy Culliford, Rachel Brierley, Madeleine Clout, Rebecca Evans, Rachel Maishman, Dawn Phillips, Hana Tabusa, Barney Reeves, Chris A. Rogers
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-12-01
Series:Trials
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3958-3
id doaj-305d9f27c47b4375b671260ecc41f691
record_format Article
spelling doaj-305d9f27c47b4375b671260ecc41f6912020-12-27T12:11:25ZengBMCTrials1745-62152019-12-012011610.1186/s13063-019-3958-3The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational studyLucy Culliford0Rachel Brierley1Madeleine Clout2Rebecca Evans3Rachel Maishman4Dawn Phillips5Hana Tabusa6Barney Reeves7Chris A. Rogers8Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit Bristol, Bristol Trials Centre, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolAbstract Background There has been little research to investigate whether the appearance of paper patient information leaflets (PILs) used to describe research studies to potential participants influences their decision to take part. Embedding a study within a trial (SWAT) is an efficient way of answering this type of methodological question. We included a randomised SWAT within a large cohort study, Outcome Monitoring after Cardiac Surgery (OMACS), to address this question. Methods Potential participants for the OMACS study were randomised to receive one of three PILs, which were identical in content but with varying formatting and use of colour: PIL A (enhanced format), PIL B (hybrid format) and PIL C (standard format). Consent to OMACS was the primary outcome. Consent rates using the three different PIL formats were collected and compared. Qualitative feedback on the different formats was obtained from a public and patient involvement (PPI) group. Results For the SWAT, 1517 PILs were sent to potential participants, of whom 640 (42%) consented to take part in OMACS. PIL B had the highest recruitment rate, with 45% of patients consenting to participation; 40% and 41% of patients consented to participation after receiving PILs A and C, respectively. Compared to PIL C, the consent rate was 4% higher with PIL B (45% versus 41%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2% to + 10%, p = 0.16) and 1% lower with PIL A (40% versus 41%, 95% CI − 7% to + 5%, p = 0.72). Conclusions Consent rates were similar for all three PIL formats. PIL B is being used for the remainder of the host study and will be used to inform the design of PILs for other research studies, as it was the preferred format of the PPI group. Trial registration International Clinical Trials Registry, ISRCTN90204321. Registered on 21 January 2015.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3958-3Patient information leafletrandomisedstudy within a studyrecruitmentconsent
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lucy Culliford
Rachel Brierley
Madeleine Clout
Rebecca Evans
Rachel Maishman
Dawn Phillips
Hana Tabusa
Barney Reeves
Chris A. Rogers
spellingShingle Lucy Culliford
Rachel Brierley
Madeleine Clout
Rebecca Evans
Rachel Maishman
Dawn Phillips
Hana Tabusa
Barney Reeves
Chris A. Rogers
The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study
Trials
Patient information leaflet
randomised
study within a study
recruitment
consent
author_facet Lucy Culliford
Rachel Brierley
Madeleine Clout
Rebecca Evans
Rachel Maishman
Dawn Phillips
Hana Tabusa
Barney Reeves
Chris A. Rogers
author_sort Lucy Culliford
title The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study
title_short The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study
title_full The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study
title_fullStr The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study
title_full_unstemmed The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study
title_sort omacs-pil study: a randomised controlled trial within the omacs observational study
publisher BMC
series Trials
issn 1745-6215
publishDate 2019-12-01
description Abstract Background There has been little research to investigate whether the appearance of paper patient information leaflets (PILs) used to describe research studies to potential participants influences their decision to take part. Embedding a study within a trial (SWAT) is an efficient way of answering this type of methodological question. We included a randomised SWAT within a large cohort study, Outcome Monitoring after Cardiac Surgery (OMACS), to address this question. Methods Potential participants for the OMACS study were randomised to receive one of three PILs, which were identical in content but with varying formatting and use of colour: PIL A (enhanced format), PIL B (hybrid format) and PIL C (standard format). Consent to OMACS was the primary outcome. Consent rates using the three different PIL formats were collected and compared. Qualitative feedback on the different formats was obtained from a public and patient involvement (PPI) group. Results For the SWAT, 1517 PILs were sent to potential participants, of whom 640 (42%) consented to take part in OMACS. PIL B had the highest recruitment rate, with 45% of patients consenting to participation; 40% and 41% of patients consented to participation after receiving PILs A and C, respectively. Compared to PIL C, the consent rate was 4% higher with PIL B (45% versus 41%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2% to + 10%, p = 0.16) and 1% lower with PIL A (40% versus 41%, 95% CI − 7% to + 5%, p = 0.72). Conclusions Consent rates were similar for all three PIL formats. PIL B is being used for the remainder of the host study and will be used to inform the design of PILs for other research studies, as it was the preferred format of the PPI group. Trial registration International Clinical Trials Registry, ISRCTN90204321. Registered on 21 January 2015.
topic Patient information leaflet
randomised
study within a study
recruitment
consent
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3958-3
work_keys_str_mv AT lucyculliford theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT rachelbrierley theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT madeleineclout theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT rebeccaevans theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT rachelmaishman theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT dawnphillips theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT hanatabusa theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT barneyreeves theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT chrisarogers theomacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT lucyculliford omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT rachelbrierley omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT madeleineclout omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT rebeccaevans omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT rachelmaishman omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT dawnphillips omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT hanatabusa omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT barneyreeves omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
AT chrisarogers omacspilstudyarandomisedcontrolledtrialwithintheomacsobservationalstudy
_version_ 1724369240553684992