The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence
Abstract
Background Participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be quite demanding and could represent an important burden for patients. We aimed to explore this research burden (i.e., the psychological, physical, and financial burdens) experienced by patients through their participation in a RCT. Methods We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies exploring adult patients’ experiences with RCT participation. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, and Embase (search date March 2018) for eligible reports. Qualitative data coding and indexing were assisted by NVivo. The quality of reports was assessed by using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool. Results We included 45 qualitative studies that involved 1732 RCT participants. Important psychological burdens were identified at every stage of the trial process. Participants reported feeling anxiety and being afraid of “being a ‘guinea pig’” and described undergoing randomization and allocation to a placebo as particularly difficult resulting in disappointment, anger, and depression. Patients’ follow-up and trial closure were also responsible for a wide range of psychological, physical, and financial burdens. Furthermore, factors related to burdensome impacts and consequences were discerned. These factors involved trial information, poorly organized and too-demanding follow-up, and lack of appropriate management when the patient’s participation ended. Trial participation was also associated…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,732 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: A review of research about the Natura 2000 network
- The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union
- Determination of ecological significance based on geostatistical assessment: a case study from the Slovak Natura 2000 protected area
- Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons
- Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective
- Approaches to Identify the Value of Seminatural Habitats for Conservation Biological Control
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.