IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0067352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parents’ Agendas in Paediatric Clinical Trial Recruitment Are Different from Researchers’ and Often Remain Unvoiced: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Kerry Woolfall
  • Valerie Shilling
  • Helen Hickey
  • Rosalind L Smyth
  • Emma Sowden
  • Paula R Williamson
  • Bridget Young

Abstract

Ensuring parents make an informed decision about their child’s participation in a clinical trial is a challenge for practitioners as a parent’s comprehension of a trial may differ from that intended by the practitioners responsible for recruitment. We explored what issues parents consider important when making a decision about participation in a paediatric clinical trial and their comprehension of these issues to inform future recruitment practice. This qualitative interview and observational study examined recruitment in four placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised clinical trials of medicines for children. Audio-recorded trial recruitment discussions between practitioners and parents (N = 41) were matched with semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 41). When making a decision about trial entry parents considered clinical benefit, child safety, practicalities of participation, research for the common good, access to medication and randomisation. Within these prioritised issues parents had specific misunderstandings, which had the potential to influence their decisions. While parents had many questions and concerns about trial participation which influenced their decision-making, they rarely voiced these during discussions about the trials with practitioners. Those involved in the recruitment of children to clinical trials need to be aware of parents’ priorities and the sorts of misunderstandings that can arise with parents. Providing trial information that is tailored to what parents consider important in making a decision about a clinical trial may improve recruitment practice and ultimately benefit evidence-based paediatric medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerry Woolfall & Valerie Shilling & Helen Hickey & Rosalind L Smyth & Emma Sowden & Paula R Williamson & Bridget Young, 2013. "Parents’ Agendas in Paediatric Clinical Trial Recruitment Are Different from Researchers’ and Often Remain Unvoiced: A Qualitative Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-8, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0067352
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067352
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067352&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0067352?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0067352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.