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

Trial participants’ self-reported understanding of randomisation phrases in participation information leaflets can be high, but acceptability of some descriptions is low, especially those linked to gambling and luck

Shiely, Frances, Murphy, Ellen, Gilles, Katie, Hood, Kerry ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5268-8631, O’Sullivan, Lydia, Harman, Nicola, Isaacs, Talia and Treweek, Shaun 2024. Trial participants’ self-reported understanding of randomisation phrases in participation information leaflets can be high, but acceptability of some descriptions is low, especially those linked to gambling and luck. Trials 25 (1) , 391. 10.1186/s13063-024-08217-3

[thumbnail of 13063_2024_8217_MOESM1_ESM.pdf] PDF - Supplemental Material
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (2MB)
[thumbnail of 13063_2024_Article_8217.pdf] PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (890kB)

Abstract

Background: Evidence indicates that trial participants often struggle to understand participant information leaflets (PILs) for clinical trials, including the concept of randomisation. We analysed the language used to describe randomisation in PILs and determine the most understandable and acceptable description through public and participant feedback. Methods: We collected 280 PILs/informed consent forms and one video animation from clinical research facilities/clinical trial units in Ireland and the UK. We extracted text on how randomisation was described, plus trial characteristics. We conducted content analysis to group the randomisation phrases inductively. We then excluded phrases that appeared more than once or were very similar to others. The final list of randomisation phrases was then presented to an online panel of participants and the public. Panel members were asked to rate each phrase on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of their understanding of the phrase, confidence in their understanding and acceptability of the phrase. Results: Two hundred and eighty PILs and the transcribed text from one video animation represented 229 ongoing or concluded trials. The pragmatic content analysis generated five inductive categories: (1) explanation of why randomisation is required in trials; (2) synonyms for randomisation; (3) comparative randomisation phrases; (4) elaborative phrases for randomisation (5) and phrases that describe the process of randomisation. We had 48 unique phrases, which were shared with 73 participants and members of the public. Phrases that were well understood were not necessarily acceptable. Participants understood, but disliked, comparative phrases that referenced gambling, e.g. toss of a coin, like a lottery, roll of a die. They also disliked phrases that attributed decision-making to computers or automated systems. Participants liked plain language descriptions of what randomisation is and those that did not use comparative phrases. Conclusions: Potential trial participants are clear on their likes and dislikes when it comes to describing randomisation in PILs. We make five recommendations for practice.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Published Online
Status: Published
Schools: Medicine
Centre for Trials Research (CNTRR)
Additional Information: License information from Publisher: LICENSE 1: URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, Type: open-access
Publisher: BioMed Central
ISSN: 1745-6215
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 19 June 2024
Date of Acceptance: 3 June 2024
Last Modified: 19 Jun 2024 09:45
URI: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/169905

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics