MotivationResponseQTNCT03021863
How Frequently and in What Format Are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants (ResponseQT)
A study testing Group A Reminder, Group B Reminder and Group C Reminder in people with Motivation, run by ThinkWell at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Motivation
- What is being tested?
- Group A Reminder, Group B Reminder and Group C Reminder
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,198 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 15 Jan 2017to 30 Sep 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- reports of clinical trials with human participants indexed in PubMed 2014-15
Who cannot join
- reports of laboratory or animal studies,
- reports of preclinical trials,
- reports of trials where there were no study participants
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: How Frequently and in What Format Are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants? A Survey of Trialists and Response Questionnaire Trial
Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. The challenge is greater in an online cohort because there is no way to observe the participant beyond what is contributed online. Poor recruiting and completion can result in underpowered research that may not be representative of the sample population. This can trigger an increase in costs as the recruitment period may have to be extended until sample size is reached. When recruiting and completion rates are inadequate studies may have to be terminated and the answer to the research question can remain unknown.
To mitigate these challenges, reminder emails are sent to questionnaire respondents. There is uncertainty about how the tone of the email reminder affects the proportion of recruitment rates.
A nested randomized trial will be used to test the intervention of tone delivery in survey email reminders to establish an evidence base. This study (ResponseQT) proposes to link with the anticipated 20,000 person international cohort study, (How Frequently and in What Format are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants: A Survey of Trialists (ResponseQT) to explore the evidence of effect for the research question, "Does the tone of a survey email reminder affect the proportion of survey participants recruited. The population will consist of researchers who have published a clinical trial indexed in Pub Med in 2014-15.The intervention is the tone of questionnaire email reminders and the outcomes will be the proportion of participants recruited after invitation (partial plus complete responses) following reminder 1 and 2.
Read the detailed description
RATIONALE
Dissemination is the planned process by which results of studies are communicated to the stakeholders of that research. Stakeholders can include health policy makers, academics, practicing clinicians and other health service workers, patients, the general public, and research funders. There are multiple ways to disseminate research findings and it is often considered a shared responsibility between funders and research investigators. Traditionally, the focus has targeted healthcare professionals, policy makers, and academics through journal publications and conference presentations. However, optimal knowledge translation depends on disseminating results to all stakeholders in a way that enables them to consider the implications of the results.
Effective communication and active dissemination of research results to patients and the lay public is essential for making informed decisions and choices, but it is sometimes considered as an afterthought. Furthermore, there is no consensus on what dissemination to patients or members of the lay public means, what is the most effective dissemination process and whether research results should be disseminated to relevant patient groups and the wider public as well as the patients who took part in the studies.
Only clinical trials indexed in PubMed 2014-15 where participants were enrolled into the study will be included. We will include screening questions at the start of the survey to exclude authors of non-randomised controlled trials, preclinical, and first-in-human trials and trials where there were no study participants.
AIM
To identify frequency and format of dissemination of clinical trial results to participants and to identify barriers to dissemination.
OBJECTIVES
- To identify frequency of dissemination of recently published clinical trial results to participants;
- To explore the format of results disseminated to participants and describe researchers' perceived appropriateness and accessibility of the format;
- To identify how frequently research results are disseminated to patients beyond those taking part in the trials such as via advocacy groups;
- To explore the frequency of public/patient involvement for determining the format, content, and extent of the dissemination plans;
- To determine researchers' perceived confidence in disseminating results to participants and other patients.
This research will contain a study within a study (SWAT) also known as a nested trial (ResponseQT).
SWAT RATIONALE
Written communication in questionnaire email reminders are without verbal or sensory cues and it is difficult to modify reminders without feedback from respondents. It would be helpful to know what kind of tone the researcher can take to increase recruitment rates.
In questionnaires, the tone could be perceived as the perception of the researcher's attitude toward the reader and the subject of the message. The overall tone of a questionnaire reminder message may affect the reader just as one's tone of voice affects the listener in a verbal exchange. This could influence response and completion rates. Added to the complexity, tone can be interpreted differently by different individuals. Survey communications about reminders suggest two approaches appealing to a team victory with a sense of duty and benefit for others by participating or by building a sense of encouragement for participation. In addition, we will test whether introducing duty or encouragement in the second reminder (after a generic first reminder) makes a difference and whether someone who was exposed to duty or encouragement in the first reminder benefits from the reinforcement of a "nudge" from a generic reminder.
METHODS
This research involves exploring ways to increase recruitment rates through reminder emails that will be sent to those who were invited but have not yet responded to the questionnaire. A reminder will be sent to all non-respondents by email 14 days following the initial mailing. An additional reminder will be sent to all non-respondents by email 28 days following the first reminder. The nested trial (ResponseQT) will examine the evidence of effect for tone used within the questionnaire reminder emails. The group to which a participant is randomized will determine the tone of the questionnaire reminder emails.
All potential respondents will be randomized to one of nine groups. They will receive the same questionnaire invitation email. Reminders for non-responders be assigned according to the group they were randomized to:
Group A Tone = Duty x 2
Group B Tone = Encourage x 2
Group C Tone = Encourage + Duty
Group D Tone = Duty + encourage
Group E Tone = Generic tone reminders X 2
Group F Tone = Generic + Duty
Group G Tone = Generic + Encouragement
Group H Tone = Duty + Generic
Group I Tone = Encouragement + Generic
All non-responders will receive a reminder to complete the questionnaire at fourteen days according to the group they are randomized to. At twenty-eight days remaining non-responders will receive the second reminder email.
The outcomes of recruitment will be compared at three stages: initial response, following the first reminder and following the second reminder.
- Conditions
- Motivation
- Being tested
- Group A Reminder, Group B Reminder, Group C Reminder, Group D Reminder, Group E Reminder
- Keywords
- Dissemination, Tone, Survey reminders, Questionnaires
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Group A ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by duty 28 days for non-responders)
Group B ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by encouragement 28 days for non-responders)
Group C ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)
Group D ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)
Group E ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (generic reminders 14 days followed by 28 days for non-responders)
Group F ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)
Group G ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)
Group H ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email ( duty14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days)
Group I ReminderBehavioural
Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by generic non-responders 28 days)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group A Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group A Reminder |
| Group B Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group B Reminder |
| Group C Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group C Reminder |
| Group D Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group D Reminder |
| Group E Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (generic reminders at 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group E Reminder |
| Group F Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group F Reminder |
| Group G Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group G Reminder |
| Group H Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group H Reminder |
| Group I Reminder | Active comparator | Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) Receives: Behavioral: Group I Reminder |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Recruitment
Proportion of sample recruited
Measured: Duration of study up to 60 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Study start15 Jan 2017
- Primary completion30 Jun 2018
- Study completion30 Sep 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for MotivationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 1,198 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- ThinkWell
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Oxford, The BMJ, Queen's University, Belfast
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Amy I Price, PhD, Principal investigator, ThinkWell
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03021863
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ThinkWell & BMJ 2
- Acronym
- ResponseQT
- Status last verified
- Mar 2021
- First submitted
- 11 Jan 2017
- Last updated
- 22 Mar 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-Identified, aggregated data upon request to investigators due to data protection laws
Publications
Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci. 2010 Nov 22;5:91. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-91.
PubMed 21092164Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Legare F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008 Mar;86(1):125-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00515.x.
PubMed 18307479Felix LM, Burchett HE, Edwards PJ. Factorial trial found mixed evidence of effects of pre-notification and pleading on response to Web-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 May;64(5):531-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.001. Epub 2010 Sep 17.
PubMed 20850270Fang J, Shao P, Lan G. Effects of innovativeness and trust on web survey participation. Comput Human Behav 2009;25:144-52. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.002
Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Human Behav 2010;26:132-9. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015
Cook DA, Wittich CM, Daniels WL, West CP, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Incentive and Reminder Strategies to Improve Response Rate for Internet-Based Physician Surveys: A Randomized Experiment. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 16;18(9):e244. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6318.
PubMed 27637296Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relations 2008;61:1139-60. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Mar 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- How Frequently and in What Format Are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants? A Survey of Trialists and Response Questionnaire Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03021863
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ResponseQT / ThinkWell & BMJ 2
- Conditions
- Motivation
- Keywords
- Dissemination, Tone, Survey reminders, Questionnaires
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,198 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- ThinkWellUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Oxford, The BMJ, Queen's University, Belfast
- Study start
- 15 Jan 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. The challenge is greater in an online cohort because there is no way to observe the participant beyond what is contributed online. Poor recruiting and completion can result in underpowered research that may not be representative of the sample population. This can trigger an increase in costs as the recruitment period may have to be extended until sample size is reached. When recruiting and completion rates are inadequate studies may have to be terminated and the answer to the research question can remain unknown.
To mitigate these challenges, reminder emails are sent to questionnaire respondents. There is uncertainty about how the tone of the email reminder affects the proportion of recruitment rates.
A nested randomized trial will be used to test the intervention of tone delivery in survey email reminders to establish an evidence base. This study (ResponseQT) proposes to link with the anticipated 20,000 person international cohort study, (How Frequently and in What Format are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants: A Survey of Trialists (ResponseQT) to explore the evidence of effect for the research question, "Does the tone of a survey email reminder affect the proportion of survey participants recruited. The population will consist of researchers who have published a clinical trial indexed in Pub Med in 2014-15.The intervention is the tone of questionnaire email reminders and the outcomes will be the proportion of participants recruited after invitation (partial plus complete responses) following reminder 1 and 2.
Detailed description
RATIONALE
Dissemination is the planned process by which results of studies are communicated to the stakeholders of that research. Stakeholders can include health policy makers, academics, practicing clinicians and other health service workers, patients, the general public, and research funders. There are multiple ways to disseminate research findings and it is often considered a shared responsibility between funders and research investigators. Traditionally, the focus has targeted healthcare professionals, policy makers, and academics through journal publications and conference presentations. However, optimal knowledge translation depends on disseminating results to all stakeholders in a way that enables them to consider the implications of the results.
Effective communication and active dissemination of research results to patients and the lay public is essential for making informed decisions and choices, but it is sometimes considered as an afterthought. Furthermore, there is no consensus on what dissemination to patients or members of the lay public means, what is the most effective dissemination process and whether research results should be disseminated to relevant patient groups and the wider public as well as the patients who took part in the studies.
Only clinical trials indexed in PubMed 2014-15 where participants were enrolled into the study will be included. We will include screening questions at the start of the survey to exclude authors of non-randomised controlled trials, preclinical, and first-in-human trials and trials where there were no study participants.
AIM
To identify frequency and format of dissemination of clinical trial results to participants and to identify barriers to dissemination.
OBJECTIVES
- To identify frequency of dissemination of recently published clinical trial results to participants;
- To explore the format of results disseminated to participants and describe researchers' perceived appropriateness and accessibility of the format;
- To identify how frequently research results are disseminated to patients beyond those taking part in the trials such as via advocacy groups;
- To explore the frequency of public/patient involvement for determining the format, content, and extent of the dissemination plans;
- To determine researchers' perceived confidence in disseminating results to participants and other patients.
This research will contain a study within a study (SWAT) also known as a nested trial (ResponseQT).
SWAT RATIONALE
Written communication in questionnaire email reminders are without verbal or sensory cues and it is difficult to modify reminders without feedback from respondents. It would be helpful to know what kind of tone the researcher can take to increase recruitment rates.
In questionnaires, the tone could be perceived as the perception of the researcher's attitude toward the reader and the subject of the message. The overall tone of a questionnaire reminder message may affect the reader just as one's tone of voice affects the listener in a verbal exchange. This could influence response and completion rates. Added to the complexity, tone can be interpreted differently by different individuals. Survey communications about reminders suggest two approaches appealing to a team victory with a sense of duty and benefit for others by participating or by building a sense of encouragement for participation. In addition, we will test whether introducing duty or encouragement in the second reminder (after a generic first reminder) makes a difference and whether someone who was exposed to duty or encouragement in the first reminder benefits from the reinforcement of a "nudge" from a generic reminder.
METHODS
This research involves exploring ways to increase recruitment rates through reminder emails that will be sent to those who were invited but have not yet responded to the questionnaire. A reminder will be sent to all non-respondents by email 14 days following the initial mailing. An additional reminder will be sent to all non-respondents by email 28 days following the first reminder. The nested trial (ResponseQT) will examine the evidence of effect for tone used within the questionnaire reminder emails. The group to which a participant is randomized will determine the tone of the questionnaire reminder emails.
All potential respondents will be randomized to one of nine groups. They will receive the same questionnaire invitation email. Reminders for non-responders be assigned according to the group they were randomized to:
Group A Tone = Duty x 2
Group B Tone = Encourage x 2
Group C Tone = Encourage + Duty
Group D Tone = Duty + encourage
Group E Tone = Generic tone reminders X 2
Group F Tone = Generic + Duty
Group G Tone = Generic + Encouragement
Group H Tone = Duty + Generic
Group I Tone = Encouragement + Generic
All non-responders will receive a reminder to complete the questionnaire at fourteen days according to the group they are randomized to. At twenty-eight days remaining non-responders will receive the second reminder email.
The outcomes of recruitment will be compared at three stages: initial response, following the first reminder and following the second reminder.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 9
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group A Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group A ReminderTone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group B Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group B ReminderTone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group C Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group C ReminderTone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group D Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group D ReminderTone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group E Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group E ReminderTone of reminder email (generic reminders at 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group F Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group F ReminderTone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group G Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group G ReminderTone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group H Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group H ReminderTone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) |
| Group I Reminder | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group I ReminderTone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- reports of clinical trials with human participants indexed in PubMed 2014-15
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- reports of laboratory or animal studies,
- reports of preclinical trials,
- reports of trials where there were no study participants
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Group A ReminderTone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by duty 28 days for non-responders) | Behavioural | Group A Reminder |
| Group B ReminderTone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by encouragement 28 days for non-responders) | Behavioural | Group B Reminder |
| Group C ReminderTone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) | Behavioural | Group C Reminder |
| Group D ReminderTone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) | Behavioural | Group D Reminder |
| Group E ReminderTone of reminder email (generic reminders 14 days followed by 28 days for non-responders) | Behavioural | Group E Reminder |
| Group F ReminderTone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days) | Behavioural | Group F Reminder |
| Group G ReminderTone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days) | Behavioural | Group G Reminder |
| Group H ReminderTone of reminder email ( duty14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days) | Behavioural | Group H Reminder |
| Group I ReminderTone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by generic non-responders 28 days) | Behavioural | Group I Reminder |
Primary outcome
Recruitment
Time frame: Duration of study up to 60 days
Proportion of sample recruited
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Mar 2021.
- Background: PubMed 21092164Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci. 2010 Nov 22;5:91. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-91.
- Background: PubMed 18307479Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Legare F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008 Mar;86(1):125-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00515.x.
- Background: PubMed 20850270Felix LM, Burchett HE, Edwards PJ. Factorial trial found mixed evidence of effects of pre-notification and pleading on response to Web-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 May;64(5):531-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.001. Epub 2010 Sep 17.
- BackgroundFang J, Shao P, Lan G. Effects of innovativeness and trust on web survey participation. Comput Human Behav 2009;25:144-52. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.002
- BackgroundFan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Human Behav 2010;26:132-9. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015
- Background: PubMed 27637296Cook DA, Wittich CM, Daniels WL, West CP, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Incentive and Reminder Strategies to Improve Response Rate for Internet-Based Physician Surveys: A Randomized Experiment. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 16;18(9):e244. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6318.
- BackgroundBaruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relations 2008;61:1139-60. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-Identified, aggregated data upon request to investigators due to data protection laws
Related trials for Motivation
Recruiting
Sustainability of the Effects of an Adapted Physical Activity Program on Physical Fitness and Psycho-behavioral Factors in Patients With Chronic Diseases
Adapted Physical Activity, Smartwatches
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of Two Different Generative AI Tools on Nursing Students' Patient Counseling Skills and Motivation Regarding Instructional Materials
Artifical Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence
Recruiting
Behavioural Study in Chronic Pain : Creativity and Motivation, and Circuits Involved in Functional MRI
Chronic Pain
Active, not recruiting
Flipped Classroom vs. Flip-Jigsaw in Theoretical Physiotherapy Education
Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Educational Technology
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
PREVENT HPV -Related Cancers Trial
HPV Vaccination, Uptake Vaccination
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Amy I Price, PhD principal investigator
ThinkWell
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Group A Reminder, Group B Reminder and Group C Reminder in people with Motivation, run by ThinkWell at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Mar 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Recruitment (time frame: Duration of study up to 60 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03021863, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Mar 2021.