Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient participation in research in the managed care environment: Key perceptions of members in an HMO

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study’s objective was to elicit the views of research among enrollees in an HMO. A questionnaire was mailed to 207 adult enrollees, 55% had been exposed to research and 45% had not. Ninety-four percent of respondents supported research within the HMO, and 87% thought using information from medical records for research was acceptable. Sixty-three percent thought participation in research increased patient understanding of health care. Significantly more prior research participants thought that participation in research improves care. More patients would participate if written information were provided (67%), if feedback of results was provided (72%), and if their clinician invited them (67%). Only a modest percentage (20%) of patients would participate in a randomized trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Showstack J, Lurie N, Leatherman S, Fisher E, Inui T. Health of the public. The private sector challenge. JAMA. 1996;276:1071–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mechanic RE, Dobson A. The impact of managed care on clinical research: a preliminary investigation. Health Affairs. 1996;15:72–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Marwick C. Effect of managed care felt in every medical field. JAMA. 1996;276:768–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kassirer JP. Academic medical centers under siege. N Eng J Med. 1994;331:1370–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson AF, Quiter ES, Solberg LI. The state of research within managed care plans: 1997 survey. Health Affairs. 1998;17:128–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moore GT, Inui TS, Ludden JM, Schoenbaum SC. The “teaching HMO”: a new academic partner. Acad Med. 1994;69:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Donahue DC, Lewis BE, Ockene IS, Saperia G. Research collaboration between an HMO and an academic medical center: lessons learned. Acad Med. 1996;71:126–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Morse JM, Field PA, editors. Qualitative approaches. In: Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:572.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McInturff WD. What Americans say about the nation’s medical schools and teaching hospitals. Washington DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wadland WC, Hughes JR, Secker-Walker RH, Bronson DL, Fenwick J. Recruitment in a primary care trial on smoking cessation. Fam Med. 1990;22:201–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelly RB, McMahon SH, Hazey JA. Does practice location or academic connection affect recruitment of patients as research subjects? Family Practice Journal 1992;12:177–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hudmon SK, Stoltzfus C, Chamberlain RM, Lorimor RJ, Steinbach G, Winn RJ. Participants’ perceptions of a phase I colon cancer chemoprevention trial. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:494–508.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bevan EG, Chee LC, McGhee SM, McInnes GT. Patients’ attitudes to participation in clinical trials. B J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;35:204–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kass NE, Sugarman J, Faden R, Schoch-Spana M. Trust: the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Center Report. 1996;26:25–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. van Gelderen CEM, Savelkoul TJF, van Dokkum W, Meulenbelt J. Motives and perception of healthy volunteers who participate in experiments. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;45:15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1998;317:1177–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:1337–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:992–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Hewison J. The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ. 1998;317:1209–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sarah Purdy MD, MPH (Lecturer)

    Present address: the Department of Primary Health Care, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, 126 Brookline Ave., 02215, Boston, MA

    Sarah Purdy MD, MPH (Lecturer), Jonathan A. Finkelstein MD, MPH, Robert Fletcher MD, ScM, Cindy Christiansen PhD & Thomas S. Inui ScM, MD

Authors
  1. Sarah Purdy MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan A. Finkelstein MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Fletcher MD, ScM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cindy Christiansen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas S. Inui ScM, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was funded in part by the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purdy, S., Finkelstein, J.A., Fletcher, R. et al. Patient participation in research in the managed care environment: Key perceptions of members in an HMO. J GEN INTERN MED 15, 492–495 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.07025.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.07025.x

Key words

Search

Navigation