Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

An exploration of patients' experiences of participation in a randomised controlled trial of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule

  • Patricia Van Den Berg
  • , Sarah Kendal
  • , Helen V. Alderson
  • , Richard Body*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI)
  • The University of Huddersfield

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background As an important part of a pilot study to determine the feasibility of a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule with standard care, we aimed to explore patient attitudes and potential barriers to participation in a trial of this nature. Methods We conducted a qualitative study nested within a pilot RCT comparing use of the MACS rule (which could enable some patients with chest pain to be discharged earlier) with standard care. Semi-structured interviews with consenting participants were conducted with reference to a bespoke topic guide. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method with an inductive approach. Results The 10 interviewees expressed that participation in the trial was generally acceptable. All but one recommended participation to others. Participants who were in pain or anxious at the time of arrival reported that the initial invitation to participate in the trial was sometimes made too early. The approach was welcome, providing they had been given time to settle. Interviewees welcomed the opportunity that trial participation offered for them to play a more active role in their healthcare and to reduce unnecessary waiting time. Participants appeared to like the fact that participation in the trial might mean they could return home sooner and welcomed the provision of follow-up. Although several participants described being generally sceptical of medical research, they were amenable to participation in this trial. This appears to be because they agreed with the need for research in this field and perceived the intervention as non-invasive. Conclusions Patients were positive about their participation in this RCT comparing the MACS rule with standard care. A number of areas for improving trial design were identified and should be considered in the planning of future large trials. Trial registration ISRCTN 86818215 Research ethics committee reference 13/NW/0081 UKCRN registration ID 14334

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)593-598
Number of pages6
JournalEmergency Medicine Journal
Volume34
Issue number9
Early online date12 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2017

Keywords

  • acute coronary syndrome
  • clinical
  • emergency department utilisation
  • qualitative research
  • research
  • risk management

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'An exploration of patients' experiences of participation in a randomised controlled trial of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this