P952 Why do patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Take Part in Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials? A qualitative study of Clinical Trial Participants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Recruitment rates to clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continue to decline. A better understanding of motivations to participate as well as recommendations to reduce barriers to enrolment from a patient perspective may assist in design of future clinical trials. Methods We developed a 32-item electronic questionnaire to explore motivations, experiences and recommendations of patients with IBD, who have participated in pharmaceutical clinical trials in a tertiary centre in Canada. Results We distributed a total of 82 emails with surveys based on the patient details available to the study team. Using the DillMan Total Design Survey method, participants were followed up one week after the initial email with a reminder phone-call and we received 46 responses (56.1% response rate). Participants were mostly, male (58.7%), non-Hispanic white (93.5%), with a mean age of 45.5 years (SD 10.9). Most participants decided to participate in a clinical trial to benefit future patients with IBD (63.0%). Self-reported knowledge of the possibility of being assigned to placebo on a scale from 0 (no knowledge) to 100 (extremely knowledgeable) was a median of 100 (IQR 100-100) (Table 1). Half of participants (50.0%) reported they were worried about the possibility of receiving placebo, although the majority (63.0%) understood they could improve on placebo. The most challenging aspect reported was the number and length of questionnaires (32.6%), as well of the number of colonoscopies (30.4%). Strategies to increase enrolment recommended by participants were reduction in the chance of receiving placebo (43.5%), facilitating inclusion of patients who have failed multiple therapies (43.5%), allowing virtual visits (39.1%), including subtypes of disease that have traditionally been excluded in clinical trials (e.g., ostomies, fistula) (34.8%), and improving outreach to underrepresented populations (28.3%) (Figure 1). The vast majority (80.4%) reported their experience of participation to be better than expected and would recommend taking part in a clinical trial to other patients with IBD (97.8%). Conclusion Patients with IBD who took part in pharmaceutical trials reported a high level of satisfaction overall. The top three recommendations from patients to improve clinical trial design were reducing the chance of receiving placebo, allowing inclusion of patients who have failed multiple therapies and allowing for virtual visits to reduce travel burden to the clinical trial site. These results should help inform the design of patient centric clinical trials in IBD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».