What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to assess participants' satisfaction and perceived health improvements during a clinical trial.

March 14, 2026Open Access

Assessment of Participant Satisfaction and Overall Experience: A Cross-Sectional Survey to Inform Trial Conduct

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Participants in a clinical trial on magnesium supplementation for type 2 diabetes reported high satisfaction levels and perceived symptom improvements, particularly in muscle cramps, energy, and sleep quality. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.CONFIRMATORY. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.SUPPORTS_CONSENSUS.

Key Points

The aim is to assess participants' satisfaction and perceived health improvements during a clinical trial.
Conducted a cross-sectional survey among participants of a randomized, double-blind trial.
Utilized a 25-item survey addressing trial experience and symptom improvements.
Survey developed bilingually and psychometrically tested for consistency and validity.
Performed both quantitative and qualitative thematic analysis on the responses.
High internal consistency of the survey (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93) and strong construct validity.
132 of 227 participants completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 58.15%.
Participants reported high satisfaction, particularly with staff professionalism and communication.
75% expressed willingness to join future trials, and 87.88% would recommend participation.
Over half reported symptom improvements, notably in muscle cramps, energy, and sleep quality.

Abstract

Purpose: This study assessed participants’ experience with their clinical trial and explored perceived health improvements to support quality improvement initiatives. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among participants of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial on magnesium supplementation in type 2 diabetes. All participants were invited to complete a 25-item survey after providing informed consent. The survey covered general information, core trial experience (Five-Point-Likert-Scale), symptom improvement, overall satisfaction, and open-ended questions. The tool was bilingually developed, culturally adapted, and psychometrically tested for consistency and validity. Both quantitative and qualitative thematic analysis were performed. Results: The survey demonstrated a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93), and a strong construct validity characterized by a predominant unidimensional structure (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value=0.897). Of 227 contacted participants, 132 completed the survey (response rate: 58.15%). Satisfaction scores were consistently positive, especially for staff professionalism, respect for time, and informed consent clarity. Most respondents (75%) were willing to join future trials, and 87.88% would recommend participation. Over half reported symptom improvements, particularly in muscle cramps, energy, and sleep quality. No significant association was found between satisfaction and symptom improvement. Satisfaction was high across all educational levels. Open-ended responses emphasized staff professionalism, clear communication, and perceived health benefits as key factors to the overall reported satisfaction. Conclusion: Respondents reported a consistently high satisfaction level, with perceived symptom improvements and strong willingness to future participation. This internally reliable and structurally valid survey captured meaningful feedback and may serve as a valuable quality improvement initiative to enhance patient engagement and optimize trial conduct, however, within the study’s limitations. Keywords: participant satisfaction, clinical trials, survey, trial conduct, patient engagement, quality improvement

AI에게 질문

Bookmark

View Full Paper