Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

To explore how the concept of randomisation is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment.Qualitative analysis of seventy-three audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multi-centre, UK based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties.One in ten appointments did not include any mention of randomisation. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often drew on gambling-related metaphors or similies, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was 'best for them'. Descriptions of the rationale for randomisation were rarely present, and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation.The methods and processes of randomisation were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomisation was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations, and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomisation to ensure patients are better informed about randomisation and RCT participation.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018

Type

Journal

Journal of clinical epidemiology

Publication Date

02/03/2018

Addresses

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: marcus.jepson@bristol.ac.uk.

Keywords

CSAW study group, Chemorad study group, POUT study group, ACST-2 study group, Optima prelim study group