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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |