gms | German Medical Science

23. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

01. - 03.09.2022, Lübeck

Willingness to participate in, support, or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • Julia Stadelmaier - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Deutschland
  • Jörg J. Meerpohl - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Deutschland; Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Deutschland
  • Ingrid Toews - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Deutschland

Evidenzbasierte Medizin für eine bedarfsgerechte Gesundheitsversorgung. 23. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Lübeck, 01.-03.09.2022. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2022. Doc22ebmPOS-1_1-01

doi: 10.3205/22ebm065, urn:nbn:de:0183-22ebm0653

Published: August 30, 2022

© 2022 Stadelmaier et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Background/research question: Post-entry studies generate relevant evidence about the effectiveness and applicability of (new) medical examination and treatment methods for decision-making. In light of their particularity of being carried out while the intervention is already used in practice, it is important to reflect on their acceptability and feasibility. This study aimed to evaluate the willingness of different stakeholder groups to engage post-entry in studies for benefit assessment and to assess differences in their willingness by study type, i.e. randomised controlled trial (RCT) or observational study.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey with a self-administrated questionnaire. We disseminated invitations to patients, patient representatives, healthcare providers, scientists and representatives of the medical private sector, using a snowball system, public contact details of associations and organisations, and social media. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data inductively.

Results: Data of 154 respondents were available for analysis. The majority (>85%) was willing to engage in the studies in general, and RCTs as well as observational studies. Scientists reported a higher willingness to conduct and support RCTs (p=0.01) as compared to observational studies. Representatives of the private sector were mainly willing to support, but not to carry out post-entry studies. Stakeholders frequently mentioned that potential personal benefit and altruistic motives were relevant for their decision to engage in studies. Practical inconveniences, poor integration into daily life, high demand for time and personnel, and lack of resources were commonly mentioned barriers.

Conclusion: Stakeholders clearly reported to be willing to engage in post-entry studies for benefit assessment. Self-reported willingness to participate in and support for studies seems higher than actual recruitment rates. The survey might be subject to survey error and self-enhancement of participants. Inquiring about the willingness of hypothetical studies might have caused participants to report higher willingness. Motives for and against participation may be possible starting points for approaches to overcome recruitment difficulties and facilitate successful study conduct.