Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding. Factors affecting general practitioner involvement in a randomised controlled trial in primary care. Promoting patient participation in consultations: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of three patient-focused interventions. Informing breast cancer patients about clinical trials: a randomized clinical trial of an educational booklet. Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060].
An intervention was developed to increase patient involvement in care. Using a treatment algorithm as a guide, patients were helped to read their medical record and coached to ask questions and negotiate medical decisions with their physicians during a 20-minute session before their regularly scheduled visit. In a randomized controlled trial we compared this intervention with a standard educational session of equal length in a clinic for patients with ulcer disease. Six to eight weeks after the trial, patients in the experimental group reported fewer limitations in physical and role-related activities (p less than 0.05), preferred a more active role in medical decision-making, and were as satisfied with their care as the control group. Analysis of audiotapes of physician-patient interactions showed that patients in the experimental group were twice as effective as control patients in obtaining information from physicians (p less than 0.05). Results of the intervention included increased involvement in the interaction with the physician, fewer limitations imposed by the disease on patients' functional ability, and increased preference for active involvement in medical decision-making. Despite widespread agreement on the importance of informed consent in clinical research, uncertainty remains about the adequacy of current consent procedures and documentation.
                The objective of the study was to compare an informed consent document developed by a consumer group of potential study participants to one developed by the study investigators. The study was a cluster randomized, controlled study embedded in a 'parent' randomized controlled trial of 1092 participants with Gulf War veterans' illnesses recruited in 1999-2000 at 20 US medical centers. Centers were randomized to the investigator-developed or participant-developed consent document. The primary outcome measure was an Informed Consent Questionnaire-4 (ICQ-4), a validated four-item scale measuring self-reported participant understanding scored from 0 to 1. Secondary outcomes included the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and measures of study refusal and adherence to the parent trial protocol.
                There were no significant differences between consent documents on the ICQ-4 score overall or at any of the time points. Mean (95% CI) treatment differences ranged from +0.020 (-0.015, 0.055) (better understanding) at entry to -0.021 (-0.054, 0.012) (worse understanding) at three-months for the participant versus the investigator document group. There were also no significant differences in satisfaction, adherence to the protocol, or in the proportion of patients who refused to participate in the trial.
                The consumer group may not have been representative of the study participants and they did not suggest dramatic changes to the consent document. The outcome assessment questionnaire was not validated prior to the trial's initiation.
                Consumer modification of the consent document did not lead to either benefit or harm in understanding, satisfaction, or study refusal and adherence rates. This study did demonstrate, however, that embedding consent studies in a clinical trial is feasible and can address important questions about informed consent without disrupting the primary study. To investigate factors associated with patient recruitment by general practitioners (GPs) in a randomised controlled trial in primary care.
                Cross sectional survey of 100 GPs who had agreed to recruit patients for a randomised controlled trial. A postal questionnaire was sent to the 100 GPs to collect information on factors associated with recruitment in the randomised controlled trial.
                The response rate to the survey was 97%. GPs who reported that practice nurses were involved in the research project were significantly more likely to recruit patients into the trial. Age, sex, membership of an independent practitioner association (IPA), number of half days worked, and the number of GPs working in a practice were not associated with recruitment.
                Involvement of practice nurses together with GPs may improve recruitment of patients in randomised controlled trials in primary care in New Zealand. The aim of this experimental study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three patient-focused interventions designed to increase patient question asking in clinical consultations. Patients were randomly allocated to one of five conditions to receive either one of three interventions or to serve as an attention control group or a control group. The primary outcome measure was question asking by the patient of their physician. Participants in the intervention groups did not ask more questions than participants in the control groups. Immediately after the consultation participants in the intervention groups had higher levels of self-efficacy in asking questions. Three months after the index visit patients in the intervention groups were significantly more likely to be satisfied to some degree than patients in the control group. There was no difference in diabetic control. These results suggest that simple brief patient-focused interventions do not change patient behaviour in medical outpatient consultations. To evaluate the impact of an educational booklet on women's knowledge of and willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial of treatment for breast cancer.
                Women undergoing surgery for newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer were randomized to receive, or not, an information booklet explaining the need for and manner in which randomized trials are conducted.
                Eighty-three women with newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer completed a questionnaire assessing attitudes to random clinical trials (RCTs) and were randomized to receive usual information treatment options provided from their oncologist, or the educational booklet in addition to usual information from their oncologist (42 usual information, 41 booklet). Fewer women who received the clinical trials booklet (40% versus 47%) would consider participating in the hypothetical clinical trial (P = 0.6). Mean knowledge scores increased for both groups; moreover, women who did not receive the booklet showed similar improvements to women who received the booklet [mean difference 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.83]. In a multivariate analysis women who would consider participating in the clinical trial were more anxious [odds ratio (OR) 5.9, P = 0.02] had involved lymph nodes (OR 5.8, P = 0.02) and were less influenced by negative aspects of clinical trials (OR 7.7, P = 0.0001). After adjustment for these variables women who received the educational booklet were significantly less likely to consider trial participation (OR 0.22, P = 0.05).
                Educating women about clinical trials in this manner appears ineffective in improving recruitment to RCTs. Women appear to be more influenced by their perception of risk than understanding. This finding has ethical implications for communication of information about RCTs. Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.
                148 self-selected public health physicians were randomised to an intervention group (n = 73) and a control group (n = 75). The intervention group received a multifaceted intervention while the control group received a letter declaring that they had access to library services. Baseline assessments before the intervention and post-testing immediately at the end of a 1.5-year intervention period were conducted. The intervention was theoretically based and consisted of a workshop in evidence-based public health, a newsletter, access to a specially designed information service, to relevant databases, and to an electronic discussion list. The main outcome measure was behaviour as measured by the use of research in different documents.
                The intervention did not demonstrate any evidence of effects on the objective behaviour outcomes. We found, however, a statistical significant difference between the two groups for both knowledge scores: Mean difference of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2-0.6) in the score for knowledge about EBM-resources and mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI: 0.0-0.3) in the score for conceptual knowledge of importance for critical appraisal. There were no statistical significant differences in attitude-, self-efficacy-, decision-to-adopt- or job-satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in Cochrane library searching after controlling for baseline values and characteristics.
                Though demonstrating effect on knowledge the study failed to provide support for the hypothesis that a theory-based multifaceted intervention targeted at identified barriers will change professional behaviour.
There is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer involvement in healthcare decisions at the population level. The trials included in this review demonstrate that randomised controlled trials are feasible for providing evidence about the effects of involving consumers in these decisions.