↓ Skip to main content

Study within a trial (SWAT) protocol. Participants' perspectives and preferences on clinical trial result dissemination: The TRUST Thyroid Trial experience

Overview of attention for article published in Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Study within a trial (SWAT) protocol. Participants' perspectives and preferences on clinical trial result dissemination: The TRUST Thyroid Trial experience
Published in
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.07.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmy Racine, Caroline Hurley, Aoife Cheung, Carol Sinnott, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, William H. Smithson, Patricia M. Kearney

Abstract

Dissemination of results of randomised controlled trials is traditionally limited to academic and professional groups rather than clinical trial participants. While there is increasing consensus that results should be communicated to trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods of dissemination. This study within a trial (SWAT) aims to address this gap by using a public and patient involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-preferred method of receiving trial results of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypothyroidism Trial (TRUST). An experimental (intervention) study will be conducted using mixed methods to inform the development of and evaluation of a patient-preferred method of communication of trial results. The study will involve three consecutive phases. In the first phase, focus groups of trial participants will be conducted to identify a patient-preferred method of receiving trial results. The method will be developed and then assessed and refined by a patient and public expert group. In the second phase participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention (patient-preferred method) and comparison groups (standard dissemination method as developed by the lead study site in Glasgow, Scotland). In the third phase, a quantitative questionnaire will be used to measure and compare patient understanding of trial results between the two groups. This protocol provides a template for other trialists who wish to enhance patient and public involvement and additionally, will provide empirical evidence on how trialists should best disseminate study results to their participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Psychology 3 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,061,671
of 24,874,764 outputs
Outputs from Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
#53
of 598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,000
of 321,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,874,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 321,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.