Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.
Weinfurt, Kevin P; Bollinger, Juli M; May, Elizabeth; Geller, Gail; Mathews, Debra J H; Morain, Stephanie R; Schmid, Lorrie; Bloom, Diane L; Sugarman, Jeremy.
Afiliação
  • Weinfurt KP; Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, 215 Morris St, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu.
  • Bollinger JM; Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • May E; Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Geller G; Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Mathews DJH; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Morain SR; Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Schmid L; Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Bloom DL; Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Sugarman J; Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(7): 1658-1664, 2022 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34383228
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial. RESEARCH

DESIGN:

Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios.

SUBJECTS:

Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses.

MEASURES:

The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none).

RESULTS:

A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS:

Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Internet / Intenção Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Gen Intern Med Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Internet / Intenção Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Gen Intern Med Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article