ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1925

Patient Satisfaction with an Associate Teaching Hospital Clinical Trial Unit In North-East London

Genevieve Casey1, Carey Tierney2, Hasan Tahir3, Simon Donnelly3 and Judith Bubbear3, 1Barts and the London Medical School, London, United Kingdom, 2Whipps Cross Clinical Research Unit, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom, 3Rheumatology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Meeting: 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Clinical research

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Title: Health Services Research, Quality Measures and Quality of Care - Innovations in Health Care Delivery

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Compared to patient satisfaction with general medical care little is known about patient satisfaction within clinical trials. Clinical trials are a time and resource demand for patients without  necessarily a guarantee of receiving the active compound. Given the importance in developing new therapies and medicines, and outcomes overall we were keen to examine patient satisfaction within the unit we run and thoughts and experiences with regard to clinical trials.

Whipps Cross University Hospital is an Associate Teaching Hospital in North-East London serving a population of around 400,000 with a commercially run research unit. Our unit currently runs 14 trials and sees 20-30 patients each week. The clinical trials mainly test biological therapies in autoimmune rheumatic diseases.

Methods: We could not find a validated satisfaction survey for patients in clinical trials. We modified a survey by Madsen et al. using clinical trials with inflammatory bowel disease. The survey had 21 questions. Every patient attending the unit at least 3 times was surveyed from April – June 2013.

Results: 38 surveys were completed. Patient satisfaction with clinical trials and the research unit is positive. 71% reported a very positive attitude towards these trials, 79% indicated they would participate again and 79% would recommend a friend or family member to participate.

81% of respondents felt it was ‘always’ necessary to examine new drugs using a clinical trial design, 31% were ‘hesitant’ about randomization and 48% about blinding. 53% said it was ‘very important’ to them to recognise staff at each visit and 74% indicate this aspect influences their attitudes towards clinical trials ‘a lot’.

One respondent reported the trial was ‘too time consuming’, two that they ‘could have used more time’ and the remainder felt time allocation was ‘OK’.

Getting the ‘new’ drug, being closely monitored, having a ‘good relationship’ with doctors/nurses, and helping future patients, were all ‘very important’ motives for participating in the trial with the majority of the respondents.

Conclusion: Our results are similar to those reported by Madsen et al. The attitudes towards blinding and randomization could perhaps be addressed by providing more education about the necessity of blinding and randomization prior to trial participation.

Madsen et al identified having a single physician design their trials results in high patient satisfaction. Our survey also shows participants value recognising the same staff at each visit and may be undervalued by trial designers in a busy setting.

Overall, patient satisfaction with clinical trials was high and clinicians should feel confident when referring patients for inclusion in clinical trials.


Disclosure:

G. Casey,
None;

C. Tierney,
None;

H. Tahir,
None;

S. Donnelly,
None;

J. Bubbear,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/patient-satisfaction-with-an-associate-teaching-hospital-clinical-trial-unit-in-north-east-london/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology