Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical Trial Results Summary for Laypersons: A User Testing Study

  • Clinical Trials: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To apply “user testing” to maximize readability and acceptability of a Clinical Trial Results Laypersons Summary —a new European requirement.

Methods

“User testing” (using questionnaire and semistructured interview) assessed whether people could find and understand key points. Findings were used to improve content and design, prior to retesting. Participants had a range of levels of health literacy and there was a higher education group. Participants accessed the summary on screen. In round 1 we tested 12 points of information. In round 2 a revised summary addressing round 1 findings was tested, leading to a third final version.

Results

In round 1, 2 of 12 points of information did not reach the target and interviews raised further format and content issues (some distracting technical explanations and inability to find or understand the 2 main study purposes). These findings informed revisions for the version tested in round 2, with 2 different points not reaching the target (inclusion criteria relating to duration of seasonal allergies and how researchers found out about participants’ symptoms). Identified problems in both rounds were addressed and reflected in the final version. Despite improvements, participants did not consistently understand that summaries were intended for the public, or to only interpret results of single trials in the context of additional trials. All readers, including those with higher education, found the clear and straightforward language acceptable.

Conclusions

Applying “user testing” resulted in a largely health-literate summary suitable for people across a range of backgrounds.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Union, 27 May 2014.

  2. Summary of clinical trial results for laypersons. Clinical trials — major developments. DG Health and Food Safety, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/clinical-trials/developments_en. Published 2016.

  3. European Commission. Consultation document: Summary of clinical trial results for lay persons. http://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/clinicaltrials/2016_06_pc_guidelines/gl_3_consult.pdf. Published 2016.

  4. Sless D, Shrensky R. Writing About Medicines for People. Sydney: ASMI; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Raynor DK. User testing in developing patient medication information in Europe. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2013;9:640–645.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Silcock J, Parkinson B. Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? A randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2011;9:89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris E, Enright D. New words for cautionary and advisory labels make them easily understood. Pharm J. 2011;286:278–279.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Raynor DK, Bryant D. European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raynor DK. Risk management plan lay summaries—how to make them fit for purpose? Paper presented at: DIA European Medical Information and Communications Conference, London 2014.

  10. Philip G, Malmstrom K, Hampel FC, Weinstein SF, LaForce CF. Montelukast for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in the spring. Clin Exp Allergy. 2002;32:1020–1028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rowlands G, Khazaezadeh N, Oteng-Ntim E. Development and validation of a measure of health literacy in the UK: the newest vital sign. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Raynor DK, Dickinson D. Key principles to guide development of consumer medicines information. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:700–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. European Commission. Guideline on the readability of the labelling and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol2/c/2009_01_12_readability_guideline_final_en.pdf.

  14. Hallinan ZP, Getz KA. Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2370–2371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Way D, Bouder F, Lofstedt R, Evensen D. Medicines transparency at the EMA in the new information age: the perspective of patients. J Risk Res. 2016;19:1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. K. Raynor PhD, BPharm (Hons).

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raynor, D.K., Myers, L., Blackwell, K. et al. Clinical Trial Results Summary for Laypersons: A User Testing Study. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 606–628 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017753129

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017753129

Keywords

Navigation