Clinical trial participants' experiences of completing questionnaires: A qualitative study
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 4, Issue: 3, Page: e004363
2014
- 10Citations
- 73Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations10
- Citation Indexes10
- 10
- CrossRef7
- Captures73
- Readers73
- 73
Article Description
Objectives: To improve clinical study developments for elderly populations, we aim to understand how they transfer their experiences into validated, standardised self-completed study measurement instruments. We analysed how women (mean 78±8 years of age) participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) cognised study instruments used to evaluate outcomes of the intervention. Setting: The interview study was nested in an RCT on chronic neck pain using common measurement instruments situated in an elderly community in Berlin, Germany, which comprised of units for independent and assisted-living options. Participants: The sample (n=20 women) was selected from the RCT sample (n=117, 95% women, mean age 76 (SD±8) years). Interview participants were selected using a purposive sampling list based on the RCT outcomes. Outcomes: We asked participants about their experiences completing the RCT questionnaires. Interviews were analysed thematically, then compared with the questionnaires. Results: Interviewees had difficulties in translating complex experiences into a single value on a scale and understanding the relationship of the questionnaires to study aims. Interviewees considered important for the trial that their actual experiences were understood by trial organisers. This information was not transferrable by means of the questionnaires. To rectify these difficulties, interviewees used strategies such as adding notes, adding response categories or skipping an item. Conclusions: Elderly interview participants understood the importance of completing questionnaires for trial success. This led to strategies of completing the questionnaires that resulted in 'missing' or ambiguous data. To improve data collection in elderly populations, educational materials addressing the differential logics should be developed and tested. Pilot testing validated instruments using cognitive interviews may be particularly important in such populations. Finally, when the target of an intervention is a subjective experience, it seems important to create a method by which participants can convey their personal experiences. These could be nested qualitative studies. Trial registration number: ISRCTN77108101807.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84897524110&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004363; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662446; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004363; https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/101304; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004363; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/3/e004363; http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-101304; https://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-101304; https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/101304/; http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/3/e004363; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/3/e004363.abstract; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/4/3/e004363.full.pdf; http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004363; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/3/e004363.full.pdf; https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/101304/1/bmjopen-2013-004363.pdf; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004363; http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004363
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know