The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To assess the extent to which consumers are involved in the work of clinical trial coordinating centres in the United Kingdom and the nature of consumers' involvement in randomised trials coordinated by these centres. Design: National surveys using structured questionnaires with some open ended sections. Setting: 103 clinical trial coordinating centres in the United Kingdom identified through a database assembled in 1997 by the NHS clinical trials adviser. Participants: Named contacts at 62 coordinating centres and investigators in 60 trials that were identified as involving consumers. Main outcome measures: Number of coordinating centres and number of trials in which consumers were involved and the nature of consumers' involvement. Results: Of the 62 eligible centres, 23 reported that consumers had already been involved in their work, and most respondents were positive about this involvement. 17 centres planned to involve consumers. 15 centres had no plans to involve consumers, but only four of these considered such involvement irrelevant. Responses from investigators about the 48 individual trials were mostly positive, with respondents commenting that input from consumers had helped refine research questions, improve the quality of patient information, and make the trial more relevant to the needs of patients. Conclusions: Consumer involvement in the design and conduct of controlled trials seems to be growing and seems to be welcomed by most researchers. Such involvement seems likely to improve the relevance to consumers of the questions addressed and the results obtained in controlled trials
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
Cited by
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x · Cited by 1,598
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research · doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 · Cited by 839
Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda
Boote, J., Telford, R., & Cooper, C. (2002) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00214-7 · Cited by 513
The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?
Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.023 · Cited by 386
Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how
Sacristan, J. A., Aguaron, A., Avendaño, C., Garrido, P., Carrion, J., Gutierrez, A., Kroes, R., & Flores, A. (2016) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s104259 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanley, B., Truesdale, A., King, A., Elbourne, D., & Chalmers, I.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-03-03
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 7285
- Pages
- 519-523
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1975573440
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.37
- 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: Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.322.7285.519
- The paper
- Hanley, B., Truesdale, A., King, A., Elbourne, D., & Chalmers, I. (2001). Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7285.519
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.