Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Jepson, Marcus, Elliott, Daisy, Conefrey, Carmel, Wade, Julia, Rooshenas, Leila, Wilson, Caroline, Beard, David, Blazeby, Jane M., Birtle, Alison, Halliday, Alison et al.
(2018) An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 99 . pp. 75-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018

Research output not available from this repository, contact author.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Objectives
To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment.

Study Design and Setting
Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties.

Results
One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation.

Conclusions
The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Clinical Trials Unit
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher: Elsevier Inc.
ISSN: 0895-4356
Official Date: July 2018
Dates:
DateEvent
July 2018Published
2 March 2018Available
26 February 2018Accepted
Volume: 99
Page Range: pp. 75-83
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us