American Research Journal of Emergency and Intensive Critical Care
ISSN (Online):
DOI: 10.46568/arjeic
Differentiating between Emergency Medicine and other Specialties when it Comes to the Factors that Influence Clinical Trial Participation
1Lehigh Valley Health Network, Department of Emergency Medicine Research, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
2Lehigh Valley Health Network, Network Office of Research and Innovation, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
3Lehigh Valley Health Network, Department of Family Medicine, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
: Mark C. Knouse, John C. Smulian, Jeanne L. Jacoby, “Differentiating between Emergency Medicine and other Specialties when it Comes to the Factors that Influence Clinical Trial Participation”, American Research Journal of Emergency and Intensive Critical Care.
Abstract
This research evaluated variables that affect emergency medicine (EM) patients’ choices to participate in
clinical trials and if the effect of these factors varies from those of other medical specialities.
Methods: While waiting for an appointment, a survey was handed out to patients in the emergency department (ED),
family medicine (FM), infectious disease (ID), and OB/GYN waiting rooms. Survey participants had to be at least 18 years
old and able to complete it without any help from their caregivers. Comparing participant replies using Kruskal-Wallis
tests and ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed significant differences.
Results: We contacted 2,893 people who were qualified, and 1,841 questionnaires were included in the final analysis.
Eight of the 10 driving variables between EM and one or more of the other specializations were found to be statistically
significant (p 0.001). The connection between the patient and their doctor was more motivating to patients in other
specialities than to EM patients (FM [odds ratio OR:1.752, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]:1.285-2.389], ID [OR:3.281,
95 percent CI:2.293-4.695], and OB/GYN [OR:2.408, 95 percent CI:1.741-3.330]). “How effectively the study was
communicated,” and “whether the information obtained will assist others,” were EM’s top two motivating criteria, and
they were shared by other specialities as well. When comparing EM to the other eight disciplines, there were statistically
significant differences (p0.008) in each one of the nine obstacles. “The potential of unanticipated side effects” was cited
as the greatest obstacle by participants of all disciplines. No matter whether patients’ race, “time commitment” was a
barrier for other specialities (FM [OR:1.613, 95% confidence interval 1.218-2.136]; ID [OR:1.340, 95% confidence interval
1.006-1.784]; or Ob/Gyn [OR:1.901, 95% confidence interval 1.431-2.526].) Patients who are considering taking part in a
clinical trial may use just one of the six resources evaluated to assist them make that decision.
Conclusion: There are considerable variations between EM patients and those of other disciplines in the variables that
determine their involvement in clinical trials. Providing literature in the patient’s native language, explaining the study
clearly, and demonstrating how their involvement can benefit others in the future may assist to enhance enrolment in
EM-based clinical studies. [West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(5)846-855.
