Patients’ Perspectives on Transforming Clinical Trial Participation: Large Online Vignette-based Survey.
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients' participation is crucial to the success of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, recruiting and retaining patients in trials remain a challenge. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe patients' preferences for the organization of RCTs (visits on- site or remotely) and evaluate the potential impact of fulfilling preferences on their willingness to participate in a clinical trial. METHODS: This was a vignette-based survey. Vignettes were case scenarios of real clinical trials assessing pharmacological treatments. These RCTs evaluated 6 prevalent chronic diseases (ie, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and endometriosis). Each vignette described (1) the RCT and characteristics of the treatment tested (ie, doses, administration routes) and (2) the trial procedures and different options (on-site or remotely) for how the trial was organized for informed consent, follow-up visits, and communication of results when the trial was completed. We recruited 628 participants from ComPaRe (www.compare.aphp.fr), a French e-cohort of patients with chronic diseases. The outcomes were the participants' preferences for the way the trial was organized (on-site or remotely) and their willingness to participate in the trial. RESULTS: Of the 628 participants who answered the vignettes, 491 (78.2%) were female (median age 55 years), with different chronic diseases ranging from endometriosis in 59 of 491 (12%) patients to asthma in 133 of 628 (21.2%) patients. In addition, 38 (6.1%) participants wanted to provide informed consent and all trial visits on-site, 176 (28%) wished to participate in the trial entirely remotely, and 414 (65.9%) wanted to combine remote-based and hospital-based visits. Considering the trial as a whole, when the trial was organized in a way that the patients preferred, the median (Q1-Q3) likelihood of participation in the trial was 90% (80-100) versus 60% (30-80) if the trial followed the patients' nonpreferred model. Furthermore, 256 (40.8%) patients responded to open-ended questions expressing their experience with trial participation and visits to the hospital and providing suggestions for improvement. The patients emphasized the need to personalize the way a trial is organized according to each patient's needs and conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant diversity in the participants' preferences. Most participants preferred hybrid organization involving both on-site and remote visits. Participants were more likely to participate in a trial organized according to their preferences.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A vignette-based study found diverse preferences for trial organisation and delivery, emphasising that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work; if trials are planned with consideration of participant preferences, the chance of participation may be increased by 30%.
“This is supported by a vignette-based study that asked participants their preferences for trial organisation and delivery [18]. Diverse preferences were found, emphasising that a one-size-fits all approach does not work; however, if trials are planned with consideration of participant preferences, the chance of participation may be increased by 30% [18].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 17
- Authors
- Nguyen, V. T., Ravaud, P., Tran, V. T., Young, B., & Boutron, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Inserm (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Nguyen, Van Thu
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2022-02-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e29691
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8848233
- OpenAlex
- W3216067656
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- patient preferences, clinical trial participation, willingness to participate, remote clinical trials, site visits, trial organization, chronic disease, informed consent, patient recruitment and retention, patient experience, e-cohort, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, asthma, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, endometriosis, pharmacotherapy
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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