Jeffrey L. Wells

Background: Clinical trial participants have a right to know the results of the trials in which they participate. Trial results are often not shared directly with participants and concerns with privacy and resource constraints may prevent researchers from contacting participants after trial completion. Questions/Purposes: The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to explore the feasibility of contacting orthopaedic fracture trial participants after trial completion and to determine the preferences and priorities of the participants who wished to know the results. Patients/Methods: Following the publication of the primary manuscript, we attempted to contact participants from the completed PREPARE trial at Hamilton Health Sciences to determine if they would like to know the trial results. We asked participants about their preferences for receiving trial results, their experiences upon learning them, and if they wished to learn which treatment they received. Results: Twenty-eight percent (181/641) of PREPARE trial participants contacted agreed to participate in this study. We found that 95.5% (95% CI 91.0%—97.9%) of respondents wished to know the trial results and the preferred method was through viewing summary posters via an online link (78.2%; 95% CI 71.1%—84.0%). Most felt satisfied after learning the trial results (67.8%; 95% CI 59.5%- 75.2%) and 82.2% (95% CI 75.2%—87.5%) wanted to know which treatment they received. Fifty-one percent (95% CI 42.7%—58.7%) reported that learning the results increased their likelihood of participating in a future trial. Conclusions: Although it was challenging to both contact and re-engage participants after completing an orthopaedic trial that involved minimal participant burden, our study findings suggest that learning the trial results may have a positive impact on individual participants and the research community. Given the limited understanding of results among our respondents, researchers should have processes in place to engage participants meaningfully throughout the trial and proactively discuss with them how the results will be shared once the trial is complete. Level of evidence: IV.

Objectives: Patient engagement in the design and implementation of clinical trials is necessary to ensure that the research is relevant and responsive to patients. The PREP-IT trials, which include 2 pragmatic trials that evaluate different surgical preparation solutions in orthopaedic trauma patients, followed the patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) methodology throughout the design, implementation, and conduct. We conducted a substudy within the PREP-IT trials to explore participants' experiences with trial participation. Methods: At the final follow-up visit (12 months after their fracture), patients participating in the PREP-IT trials were invited to participate in the substudy. After providing informed consent, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their experience and satisfaction with participating in the PREP-IT trials. Descriptive statistics are used to report the findings. Results: Four hundred two participants participated in the substudy. Most participants (394 [98%]) reported a positive experience, and 376 (94%) participants felt their contributions were appreciated. The primary reasons for participation were helping future patients with fracture (279 [69%]) and to contribute to science (223 [56%]). Two hundred seventeen (46%) participants indicated that their decision to participate was influenced by the minimal time commitment. Conclusions: Most participants reported a positive experience with participating in the PREP-IT trials. Altruism was the largest motivator for participating in this research. Approximately half of the participants indicated that the pragmatic, low-participant burden design of the trial influenced their decision to participate. Meaningful patient engagement, a pragmatic, and low-burden protocol led to high levels of participant satisfaction.