The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore trial participants' understandings of randomisation. DESIGN: In this exploratory study, which used qualitative research methods, in-depth, semistructured interviews were carried out with 20 participants from the CLasP randomised controlled trial. Interviews were recorded on audio tape and fully transcribed. Data were analysed by comparing transcripts and describing emergent themes, using a grounded theory approach. SETTING: The CLasP study comprises three linked multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of laser therapy, standard surgery, and conservative management for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention, or both, related to benign prostatic disease. SUBJECTS: 20 participants in the CLasP study were interviewed. Sampling was purposeful: men were included from each of the treatment arms, the two major centres, and at different points in the trial. INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviews used a checklist of topics to encourage participants to describe their experiences. Narratives concerning randomisation were compared to identify common themes, retaining the context of the discussion to allow detailed interpretation. RESULTS: Most participants recalled and described aspects of randomisation, such as the involvement of chance, comparison, and concealed allocation. Many found the concept of randomisation difficult, however, and developed alternative lay explanations to make sense of their experiences. Inaccurate patient information and lay interpretations of common trial terms caused confusion. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of clear and accurate patient information is important, but this alone will not ensure consistent interpretation of concepts such as randomisation. Patients may need to discuss the purposes of randomisation in order to understand them fully enough to give truly informed consent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
The phenomenology of the social world
Bittner, E., Schutz, A., Walsh, G., & Lehnert, F. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092457 · Cited by 3,588
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42 · Cited by 2,336
Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials.
Brewin, C. R., & Bradley, C. (1989) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6694.313 · Cited by 503
Incorporating Patients' Preferences into Medical Decisions
Kassirer, J. P. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406303302611 · Cited by 415
Cited by
Donovan, J., Little, P., Mills, N., Smith, M., Brindle, L., Jacoby, A., Peters, T., Frankel, S., Neal, D., & Hamdy, F. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 · Cited by 533
Self-citationCaldwell, P. H., Murphy, S. B., Butow, P. N., & Craig, J. C. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16942-0 · Cited by 490
Sanders, C., Rogers, A., Bowen, R., Bower, P., Hirani, S., Cartwright, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Knapp, M., Barlow, J., Hendy, J., et al. (2012) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-220 · Cited by 450
Bartlett, C., Sterne, J., & Egger, M. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7355.81 · Cited by 222
Elliott, D., Husbands, S., Hamdy, F. C., Holmberg, L., & Donovan, J. L. (2017) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Featherstone, K., & Donovan, J. L.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-10-31
- Volume
- 317
- Issue
- 7167
- Pages
- 1177-1180
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2105943500
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177
- The paper
- Featherstone, K., & Donovan, J. L. (1998). Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.