Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973759›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis.

Pepijn Al, Spencer Hey, Charles Weijer, Katie Gillies, Nicola McCleary, Mei-Lin Yee, Juliette Inglis, Justin Presseau, Jamie Brehaut

Open access · goldFull text readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Response to Merz.Trials · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Pepijn AlRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada. pal@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7475-5703
Spencer HeyPrism Analytic Technologies, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Charles WeijerDepartments of Medicine, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, and Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Nicola McClearyCentre for Implementation Research, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Mei-Lin YeePatient partner, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Juliette InglisPatient partner, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Justin PresseauCentre for Implementation Research, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jamie BrehautCentre for Implementation Research, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAWestern University · CACanadian Patient Safety Institute · CAPrism Clinical Research · USUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1CIHR 169055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitment. Although this approach is promising, the use of behavioral influences during recruitment is in tension with the ethical principle of respect for persons, as at least some of these influences could be used to manipulate potential participants. In this paper, we examine this tension by discussing two types of behavioral influences: one example involves physician recommendations, and the other involves framing of information to exploit cognitive biases. We argue that despite the apparent tension with ethical principles, influencing trial participants through behavior change strategies can be ethically acceptable. However, we argue that trialists have a positive obligation to analyze their recruitment strategies for behavioral influences and disclose these upfront to the research ethics committee. But we also acknowledge that since neither trialists nor ethics committees are presently well equipped to perform these analyses, additional resources and guidance are needed. We close by outlining a path toward the development of such guidance.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchPatient PreferenceEthical AnalysisHumansPatient SelectionAutonomyBehavior change techniquesManipulationRandomized controlled trialRecruitmentResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID36973759
PMCPMC10044713
OpenAlexW4360989937

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read2
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.