Show simple item record

dc.creatorFeatherstone, Katieen
dc.creatorDonovan, Jenny L.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T19:04:48Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T19:04:48Zen
dc.date.created1998-10en
dc.date.issued1998-10en
dc.identifier10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationBMJ (British Medical Journal). 1998 Oct 31; 317(7167): 1177-1180.en
dc.identifier.issn0959-8138en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Random+Allocation+or+Allocation+at+Random?+Patients'+Perspectives+Of+participation+in+a+Randomised+Controlled+Trial&title=BMJ+&volume=317&issue=7167&pages=1177-1180&date=1998&au=Featherstone,+Katieen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/755773en
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:MEDKIE/99013787en
dc.subjectAlternativesen
dc.subjectComprehensionen
dc.subjectConsenten
dc.subjectDiseaseen
dc.subjectEvaluationen
dc.subjectEvaluation Studiesen
dc.subjectHuman Experimentationen
dc.subjectInformed Consenten
dc.subjectInterviewsen
dc.subjectMalesen
dc.subjectMethodsen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectQualitative Researchen
dc.subjectRandom Selectionen
dc.subjectRecallen
dc.subjectResearchen
dc.subjectResearch Designen
dc.subjectResearch Subjectsen
dc.subjectSurgeryen
dc.subjectSurveyen
dc.subjectTerminologyen
dc.titleRandom Allocation or Allocation at Random? Patients' Perspectives of Participation in a Randomised Controlled Trialen
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2019 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885