Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2003 May;53(490):394–398.

Participating in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS): a qualitative study of patients' experiences.

Julia Lawton 1, Anna Fox 1, Charles Fox 1, Ann Louise Kinmonth 1
PMCID: PMC1314601  PMID: 12830569

Abstract

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) is one of the longest and largest clinical trials ever conducted. It explored the effects of intensive blood glucose and blood pressure control on the development of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients took part in this trial for up to 20 years and the drop-out rate was extremely low. The aim of this discussion paper is to explore patients' motivations for joining the UKPDS and for remaining in the trial, and to examine the implications of findings for good practice before, during, and after clinical trials. A qualitative, exploratory study was undertaken, involving former UKPDS patients (n = 10) at Northampton General Hospital, England. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken and the data analysed using grounded theory approaches. The results showed that patients were motivated to join the UKPDS because they believed this would give them the best clinical care and reduce the threat of the disease. However, all of the patients identified unanticipated benefits of trial participation, to which they attributed their strong commitment to the UKPDS. These included the reassurance provided by regular clinical examinations, the personal nature of clinical care, and the welcome discipline imposed by UKPDS professionals. Transition back to primary care at trial closure could be a lonely experience, despite follow-up being seen as competent. Practitioners involved in recruiting patients for clinical trials should be aware that participants may be motivated by the desire for better clinical care, irrespective of randomisation consequences. Those taking back the clinical care of trial participants with chronic disease may wish to consider a 're-entry' interview, to minimise trial bereavement.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (74.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bender B. G., Iklé D. N., DuHamel T., Tinkelman D. Retention of asthmatic patients in a longitudinal clinical trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1997 Feb;99(2):197–203. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(97)70096-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Braunholtz D. A., Edwards S. J., Lilford R. J. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect". J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Mar;54(3):217–224. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00305-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Britten N., Jones R., Murphy E., Stacy R. Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Fam Pract. 1995 Mar;12(1):104–114. doi: 10.1093/fampra/12.1.104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1315–1318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Charles C., Whelan T., Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):780–782. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):719–720. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dal-Ré R., Luque A., Guardiola L., Rodríguez F. Irritable bowel syndrome: attrition rates of patients identified at primary care centers during a 50-week period versus those identified in hospitals in a phase II clinical trial. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 2001;21(3-4):127–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Edwards S. J., Lilford R. J., Hewison J. The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1209–1212. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ellis P. M. Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature. Ann Oncol. 2000 Aug;11(8):939–945. doi: 10.1023/a:1008342222205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Featherstone K., Donovan J. L. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1177–1180. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Griffin S., Kinmonth A. L. Diabetes care: the effectiveness of systems for routine surveillance for people with diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000541–CD000541. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kinmonth A. L., Griffin S., Wareham N. J. Implications of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study for general practice care of type 2 diabetes. Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Sep;49(446):692–694. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Leslie R. D. United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS): what now or so what? Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 1999 Jan-Feb;15(1):65–71. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1520-7560(199901/02)15:1<65::aid-dmrr3>3.0.co;2-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mattson M. E., Curb J. D., McArdle R. Participation in a clinical trial: the patients' point of view. Control Clin Trials. 1985 Jun;6(2):156–167. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90121-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McKinstry B. Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes. BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):867–871. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7265.867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mogensen C. E. Combined high blood pressure and glucose in type 2 diabetes: double jeopardy. British trial shows clear effects of treatment, especially blood pressure reduction. BMJ. 1998 Sep 12;317(7160):693–694. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7160.693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Moore S. A need to try everything: patient participation in phase I trials. J Adv Nurs. 2001 Mar;33(6):738–747. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01715.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Murphy E., Kinmonth A. L., Marteau T. General practice based diabetes surveillance: the views of patients. Br J Gen Pract. 1992 Jul;42(360):279–283. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Orchard T. Diabetes: a time for excitement-and concern. Hopeful signs exist that the ravages of diabetes can be tamed. BMJ. 1998 Sep 12;317(7160):691–692. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7160.691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Tod A. M., Read C., Lacey A., Abbott J. Barriers to uptake of services for coronary heart disease: qualitative study. BMJ. 2001 Jul 28;323(7306):214–214. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7306.214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Woodcock A. J., Kinmonth A. L., Campbell M. J., Griffin S. J., Spiegal N. M. Diabetes care from diagnosis: effects of training in patient-centred care on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of primary care professionals. Patient Educ Couns. 1999 May;37(1):65–79. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00104-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES