Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2006 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2006 Open Access

Trials 1/2006

Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

Zeitschrift:
Trials > Ausgabe 1/2006
Autoren:
Krysia Canvin, Ann Jacoby
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1745-6215-7-32) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Declaration of competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

KC conducted the fieldwork and analysis. AJ conceived and designed the study, and participated in the analysis of the data. KC and AJ jointly drafted the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy.

Methods

In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package.

Results

Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate.

Conclusion

Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct.
Zusatzmaterial
Authors’ original file for figure 1
13063_2006_169_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2006

Trials 1/2006 Zur Ausgabe