Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit (DIAN-TU): Trial Satisfaction and Attitudes towards Future Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trial satisfaction is increasingly important for future trial designs and is associated with treatment adherence and willingness to enroll in future research studies or to recommend trial participation. In this post-trial survey, we examined participant satisfaction and attitudes toward future clinical trials in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit (DIAN-TU). METHODS: We developed an anonymous, participant satisfaction survey tailored to participants enrolled in the DIAN-TU-001 double-blind clinical trial of solanezumab or gantenerumab and requested that all study sites share the survey with their trial participants. A total of 194 participants enrolled in the trial at 24 study sites. We utilized regression analysis to explore the link between participants' clinical trial experiences, their satisfaction, and their willingness to participate in upcoming trials. RESULTS: Survey responses were received over a sixteen-month window during 2020-2021 from 58 participants representing 15 study sites. Notably, 96.5% of the survey respondents expressed high levels of satisfaction with the trial, 91.4% would recommend trial participation, and 96.5% were willing to enroll again. Age, gender, and education did not influence satisfaction levels. Participants reported enhanced medical care (70.7%) and pride in contributing to the DIAN-TU trial (84.5%). Satisfaction with personnel and procedures was high (98.3%). Respondents had a mean age of 48.7 years, with most being from North America and Western Europe, matching the trial's demographic distribution. Participants' decisions to learn their genetic status increased during the trial, and most participants endorsed considering future trial participation regardless of the DIAN-TU-001 trial outcome. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that DIAN-TU-001 participants who responded to the survey exhibited high motivation to participate in research, overall satisfaction with the clinical trial, and willingness to participate in research in the future, despite a long trial duration of 4-7 years with detailed annual clinical, cognitive, PET, MRI, and lumbar puncture assessments. Implementation of features that alleviate barriers and challenges to trial participation is like to have a high impact on trial satisfaction and reduce participant burden.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".