Who took part in The People’s Trial?
Despite the differences in the number of people in each group at the end of the trial, people in the two groups were, on average, similar in their age and gender, in their understanding of randomised trials and whether or not they worked in health care. Also, people in both groups told us they had similar sleep quality at the beginning of the trial. This tells us that the two groups are similar.
| The people who took part in The People’s Trial Participants | Reading Group (n=369) | Not Reading Group (n=405) |
|---|---|---|
| Age: | ||
| 18 - 24 years | 21 (6%) | 28 (7%) |
| 25 - 44 years | 193 (52%) | 209 (51%) |
| 45 - 64 years | 123 (33%) | 145 (36%) |
| 65 years and over | 32 (9%) | 23 (6%) |
| Gender: | ||
| Female | 289 (78.3%) | 325 (80.2%) |
| Male | 75 (20.3%) | 8 (19.2%) |
| Prefer not to say/ self describe | 5 (1.3%) | 2 (0.5%) |
| Understanding of randomised trials: | ||
| Good understanding | 251 (68%) | 278 (69%) |
| No understanding | 17 (5%) | 22 (5%) |
| Some understanding | 101 (27%) | 105 (26%) |
| Health Care background: | ||
| Healthcare | 238 (64.5%) | 269 (66%) |
| Not healthcare | 131 (35.5%) | 136 (34%) |
| Sleep Quality at the start trial: | ||
| Terrible | 7 (2%) | 6 (1%) |
| Poor | 51 (14%) | 51 (13%) |
| Fair | 175 (47%) | 181 (45%) |
| Good | 115 (31%) | 152 (37%) |
| Excellent | 21 (6%) | 15 (4%) |
How similar were people in the two groups?
Another way of presenting this information is in images, and we’ve done that below for each of the things listed in the table. You could also say that in a perfect world, the randomisation would mean that the bars for each group would look exactly the same. Although not perfect, they are very close and good enough for us to feel comfortable that the two groups start out very similar.
