These clinicians perceived a variety of ethical concerns associated with clinical trials in cancer. Delivering the intervention for patients enrolled in clinical trials was perceived to add to the workload and involvement in the trials was not perceived as a choice. Some of these concerns were similar to and some different from those reported by the physiotherapists in the MOBILISE trial. For example, since all participants in our trial received an active intervention, find more the concern over delivering a placebo

was not relevant. The issue about extra burden was generally not raised as a difficulty by the physiotherapists, perhaps due to the assistance provided by the research team. Similarly, the physiotherapists were volunteers, and this probably accounts for their general positivity. Interestingly, in both trials, the negative concerns were off-set by the commitment to the long-term contribution to evidence. In future research, the Selleck Epacadostat potential for collaboration between researchers and clinicians may be considerable. Physiotherapy is a large profession and this offers advantages to researchers such as access to trial participants. Importantly, this study showed that all the physiotherapists who had been involved in a randomised trial

for more than one year were willing to participate in future research. Utilisation of this resource may be optimised if the following factors are considered. The trial design needs to be clinically feasible and relevant. The fact that physiotherapists reported that the trial fitted into their routine indicates that feasible trial designs may be implemented successfully. To participate in a research trial, clinicians need approval from departmental heads. Approval is more likely if a project has direct relevance to the unit. The relationship between the research team and clinicians seems to be important in

ensuring compliance and commitment to the trial. The results suggest that investing in this relationship through practical assistance with recruitment, paperwork and answering questions arising during the course of the trial, may be important to optimise future research. Additionally, providing the trial physiotherapists with adequate equipment may benefit to compliance. This study provides detailed information regarding physiotherapists’ perceptions of delivering intervention in a randomised trial. The semi-structured interview method used, including both closed and open questions, ensured comprehensive responses. Key themes emerged from the interviews, suggesting they were successful in exploring physiotherapists’ perceptions. A limitation of this study is that not all physiotherapists involved in the randomised controlled trial were interviewed. However those interviewed delivered 77% of the total intervention and a decision was made to include only physiotherapists who had a significant involvement in delivering trial intervention.