Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Patient reported outcomes and recruitment rates following the introduction of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs): Protocol for a meta-analysis

Howick, Jeremy, Svobodova, Martina, Treweek, Shaun, Jacob, Nina, Gillies, Katie, Bostock, Jennifer, Bower, Peter, Edwards, Adrian and Hood, Kerenza ORCID: 2023. Patient reported outcomes and recruitment rates following the introduction of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs): Protocol for a meta-analysis. NIHR Open Research 3 , 29. 10.3310/nihropenres.13420.1

[thumbnail of 72e4a17b-ac73-4bd6-95cd-a682312541ac_13420_-_jeremy_howick (1).pdf]
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (342kB) | Preview


Background The way potential benefits and harms of trial interventions are shared within patient information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and may cause unnecessary harms (“nocebo effects”). The aim of this meta-analysis will be to evaluate the influence on recruitment rates and early effects on patient reported adverse events of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs) compared with standard PILs. Methods Eligible studies will include those that report the effects on recruitment and patient reported adverse events of PrinciPILs compared to standard PILs. We will include in this meta-analysis all the standard PILs in studies within trials (SWATs) of PrinciPILs that were developed as part of the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded PrinciPIL project. By publishing this as a living meta-analysis, we will allow the meta-analysis to be updated with future SWATs of PrinciPILs. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to evaluate the risk of bias for each outcome. We will report the total number of studies and participants analysed and the characteristics of included studies (including details of intervention, comparators, outcomes). For dichotomous data, we will calculate the risk difference and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we will use weighted mean differences with 95% CIs or standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. We will investigate heterogeneity by visually inspecting the forest plot and by considering the I2 test result. We will assess the certainty warranted for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Ethics approval is not applicable since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Discussion We will discuss the limitations of the meta-analysis including study risk of bias, inconsistency, heterogeneity, and imprecision. A general interpretation of the results and important implications will be provided.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Published Online
Status: Published
Schools: Medicine
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
ISSN: 2633-4402
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 21 March 2024
Last Modified: 21 Mar 2024 16:20

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item


Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics