Research participant-centered outcomes at NIH-supported clinical research centers.

BACKGROUND: Although research participation is essential for clinical investigation, few quantitative outcome measures exist to assess participants' experiences. To address this, we developed and deployed a survey at 15 NIH-supported clinical research centers to assess participant-centered outcomes; we report responses from 4,961 participants. METHODS: Survey questions addressed core aspects of the research participants' experience, including their overall rating, motivation, trust, and informed consent. We describe participant characteristics, responses to individual questions, and correlations among responses. RESULTS: Respondents broadly represented the research population in sex, race, and ethnicity. Seventy-three percent awarded top ratings to their overall research experience and 94% reported no pressure to enroll. Top ratings correlated with feeling treated with respect, listened to, and having access to the research team (R(2) = 0.80-0.96). White participants trusted researchers more (88%) than did nonwhite participants collectively (80%; p < 0.0001). Many participants felt fully prepared by the informed consent process (67%) and wanted to receive research results (72%). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey demonstrates that a majority of participants at NIH-supported clinical research centers rate their research experience very positively and that participant-centered outcome measures identify actionable items for improvement of participant's experiences, research protections, and the conduct of clinical investigation.

Development of a research participants' perception survey to improve clinical research.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical research participants' perceptions regarding their experiences during research protocols provide outcome-based insights into the effectiveness of efforts to protect rights and safety, and opportunities to enhance participants' clinical research experiences. Use of validated surveys measuring patient-centered outcomes is standard in hospitals, yet no instruments exist to assess outcomes of clinical research processes. METHODS: We derived survey questions from data obtained from focus groups comprised of research participants and professionals. We assessed the survey for face/content validity, and privacy/confidentiality protections and fielded it to research participants at 15 centers. We conducted analyses of response rates, sample characteristics, and psychometrics, including survey and item completion and analysis, internal consistency, item internal consistency, criterion-related validity, and item usefulness. Responses were tested for fit into existing patient-centered dimensions of care and new clinical research dimensions using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. RESULTS: Surveys were mailed to 18,890 individuals; 4,961 were returned (29%). Survey completion was 89% overall; completion rates exceeded 90% for 88 of 93 evaluable items. Questions fit into three dimensions of patient-centered care and two novel clinical research dimensions (Cronbach's alpha for dimensions: 0.69-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The validated survey offers a new method for assessing and improving outcomes of clinical research processes.