↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Simulating clinical trial visits yields patient insights into study design and recruitment

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Simulating clinical trial visits yields patient insights into study design and recruitment
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s137416
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Sam Lim, Alan J Kivitz, Doug McKinnell, M Edward Pierson, Faye S O’Brien

Abstract

We elicited patient experiences from clinical trial simulations to aid in future trial development and to improve patient recruitment and retention. Two simulations of draft Phase II and Phase III anifrolumab studies for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)/lupus nephritis (LN) were performed involving African-American patients from Grady Hospital, an indigent care hospital in Atlanta, GA, USA, and white patients from Altoona Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center in Altoona, PA, USA. The clinical trial simulation included an informed consent procedure, a mock screening visit, a mock dosing visit, and a debriefing period for patients and staff. Patients and staff were interviewed to obtain sentiments and perceptions related to the simulated visits. The Atlanta study involved 6 African-American patients (5 female) aged 27-60 years with moderate to severe SLE/LN. The Altoona study involved 12 white females aged 32-75 years with mild to moderate SLE/LN. Patient experiences had an impact on four patient-centric care domains: 1) information, communication, and education; 2) responsiveness to needs; 3) access to care; and 4) coordination of care; and continuity and transition. Patients in both studies desired background material, knowledgeable staff, family and friend support, personal results, comfortable settings, shorter wait times, and greater scheduling flexibility. Compared with the Altoona study patients, Atlanta study patients reported greater preferences for information from the Internet, need for strong community and online support, difficulties in discussing SLE, emphasis on transportation and child care help during the visits, and concerns related to financial matters; and they placed greater importance on time commitment, understanding of potential personal benefit, trust, and confidentiality of patient data as factors for participation. Using these results, we present recommendations to improve study procedures to increase retention, recruitment, and compliance for clinical trials. Insights from these two studies can be applied to the development and implementation of future clinical trials to improve patient recruitment, retention, compliance, and advocacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Psychology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 25 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,278,043
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#491
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,893
of 327,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.