Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trials

Regulatory compliance and readability of informed consent forms in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

An informed consent form is essential in drug development clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate regulatory compliance and readability of informed consent forms currently being used in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials.

METHODS

This descriptive, cross-sectional study evaluated the informed consent forms of industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, between 2019 and 2020. The informed consent form's compliance with the three major ethical guidelines and regulations (i.e. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice; Declaration of Helsinki; and the revised Common Rule) were analyzed. The document length and the readability scores (using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 64 reviewed informed consent forms, the average page length was 22.0 ± 7.4 pages. More than half of their length was mainly devoted to three elements: trial procedures (22.9%), risks and discomforts (19.1%), and confidentiality and the limit of confidentiality (10.1%). Although most of the required elements of the informed consent form content were included in most informed consent forms, we identified four elements with often missing information in the form: aspects of research that are experimental (n = 43, 67.2%), involvement of whole-genome sequencing (n = 35, 54.7%), commercial profit sharing (n = 31, 48.4%), and posttrial provisions (n = 28, 43.8%).

CONCLUSION

The informed consent forms in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials were long but incomplete. Our findings draw attention to ongoing challenges in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials, where deficient informed consent form quality continues to exist.

Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices

OBJECTIVE

Informed consent (IC) is a central ethical and legal requirement for clinical research that aims to protect the autonomy of participants. To enable an autonomous decision and valid consent, adequate understanding must be ensured. However, a considerable proportion of participants do not understand the relevant aspects about participation in research, for example, approximately 45% could not name at least one risk. As such, the inadequate understanding of IC has been known for several decades, and it still constitutes a severe problem for the ethical conduct of research. Through delineating the most pressing deficits of current IC procedures that lead to insufficient understanding, we aim to encourage the discussion among stakeholders, for example, clinical researchers, and to provide the grounds for practical solutions. MAIN ARGUMENTS: (1) IC documents are too long to be read completely, thus, make it very difficult for potential participants to identify the material facts about the trial. (2) The low readability of the IC documents disadvantages persons with limited literacy. (3) The therapeutic misconception frequently prevents participants to realise that the primary purpose of clinical research is to benefit future patients. (4) Excessive risk disclosures, insufficient information about expected benefits and framing effects compromise a rational risk/benefit assessment.

CONCLUSION

Due to these deficits, practices of IC in clinical research too often preclude adequate understanding of prospective participants, thus, invalidating IC. The gap between the well-specified ethical norm to enable IC and its insufficient translation into practice can no longer be accepted, as participant rights and the public trust in responsible research are at stake. Hence, immediate action is needed to address the prevailing deficits.

Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice

Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps:

Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues.

Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet.

Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding.

Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent.

These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations.

Single-institution cross-sectional study to evaluate need for information and need for referral to psychooncology care in association with depression in brain tumor patients and their family caregivers

Background

The prognosis of patients with brain tumors is widely varying. Psychooncologic need and depression are high among these patients and their family caregivers. However, the need for counselling and need for referral to psychooncology care is often underestimated.

Methods

We performed a single-institution cross-sectional study to evaluate psychooncologic need, depression and information need in both patients and their family caregivers. The Hornheider Screening Instrument (HSI) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) were used to evaluate psychooncologic need and depression, and a study-specific questionnaire was developed to evaluate information need. Multivariable analyses were performed to detect correlations.

Results

A total of 444 patients and their family caregivers were approached to participate, with a survey completion rate of 35.4%. More than half of the patients and family caregivers were in need for referral to psychooncology care and 31.9% of patients suffered from clinically relevant depression. In multivariable analysis, psychooncologic need were positively associated with mild (odds ratio, OR, 7.077; 95% confidence interval, CI, 2.263–22.137; p = 0.001) or moderate to severe (OR 149.27, 95% CI 26.690–737.20; p <  0.001) depression. Patient information need was associated with depression (OR 3.007, 95% CI 1.175–7.695; p = 0.022).

Conclusions

Unmet counselling need in brain tumor patients and their family caregivers associate to high psychooncologic need and depression. Adequate information may decrease the need for referral to psychooncology care and treatment of depression in these patients. Future studies should further explore these relations to promote development of supportive structures.

Determining medical decision-making capacity in brain tumor patients: why and how?

Background

Brain tumor patients are at high risk of impaired medical decision-making capacity (MDC), which can be ethically challenging because it limits their ability to give informed consent to medical treatments or participation in research. The European Association of Neuro-Oncology Palliative Care Multidisciplinary Task Force performed a systematic review to identify relevant evidence with respect to MDC that could be used to give recommendations on how to cope with reduced MDC in brain tumor patients.

Methods

A literature search in several electronic databases was conducted up to September 2019, including studies with brain tumor and other neurological patients. Information related to the following topics was extracted: tools to measure MDC, consent to treatment or research, predictive patient- and treatment-related factors, surrogate decision making, and interventions to improve MDC.

Results

A total of 138 articles were deemed eligible. Several structured capacity-assessment instruments are available to aid clinical decision making. These instruments revealed a high incidence of impaired MDC both in brain tumors and other neurological diseases for treatment- and research-related decisions. Incapacity appeared to be mostly determined by the level of cognitive impairment. Surrogate decision making should be considered in case a patient lacks capacity, ensuring that the patient's "best interests" and wishes are guaranteed. Several methods are available that may help to enhance patients' consent capacity.

Conclusions

Clinical recommendations on how to detect and manage reduced MDC in brain tumor patients were formulated, reflecting among others the timing of MDC assessments, methods to enhance patients' consent capacity, and alternative procedures, including surrogate consent.

The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study

Background

There has been little research to investigate whether the appearance of paper patient information leaflets (PILs) used to describe research studies to potential participants influences their decision to take part. Embedding a study within a trial (SWAT) is an efficient way of answering this type of methodological question. We included a randomised SWAT within a large cohort study, Outcome Monitoring after Cardiac Surgery (OMACS), to address this question.

Methods

Potential participants for the OMACS study were randomised to receive one of three PILs, which were identical in content but with varying formatting and use of colour: PIL A (enhanced format), PIL B (hybrid format) and PIL C (standard format). Consent to OMACS was the primary outcome. Consent rates using the three different PIL formats were collected and compared. Qualitative feedback on the different formats was obtained from a public and patient involvement (PPI) group.

Results

For the SWAT, 1517 PILs were sent to potential participants, of whom 640 (42%) consented to take part in OMACS. PIL B had the highest recruitment rate, with 45% of patients consenting to participation; 40% and 41% of patients consented to participation after receiving PILs A and C, respectively. Compared to PIL C, the consent rate was 4% higher with PIL B (45% versus 41%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2% to + 10%, p = 0.16) and 1% lower with PIL A (40% versus 41%, 95% CI − 7% to + 5%, p = 0.72).

Conclusions

Consent rates were similar for all three PIL formats. PIL B is being used for the remainder of the host study and will be used to inform the design of PILs for other research studies, as it was the preferred format of the PPI group.

Trial registration

International Clinical Trials Registry, ISRCTN90204321. Registered on 21 January 2015.

Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to determine the extent of information that healthy volunteers need in an informed consent form (ICF) to support their decision whether to participate in a bioequivalence study, a type of clinical studies involving the testing of pharmacokinetic equivalence of a generic drug with a brand-name drug in volunteer subjects.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, descriptive study determined the perspectives of individuals who used to participate in bioequivalence studies, using an electronic-based questionnaire. A 5-point modified Likert scale was used to indicate the importance of each element of the ICF content, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) for each item.

RESULTS

Of 300 questionnaires distributed, all (100%) were returned. The respondents considered most items to be necessary for their decision, with the score ranging from 3.25 to 4.60 (mean overall score = 4.16 ± 0.30). The four top-rated items were the "major foreseeable risk" (4.60 ± 0.72), "participant's responsibility during participation" (4.52 ± 0.72), "confidentiality and the limit of confidentiality" (4.52 ± 0.82), and "all possible adverse effects of the drug" (4.47 ± 0.74), while the relatively less concerned items were related to general information.

CONCLUSIONS

Most elements of the ICF content required were considered as important by the previously experienced volunteers in bioequivalence studies, notwithstanding that some elements were perceived as more important than others. The data from this study could be used to better tailor relevant information in an ICF to the needs of research participants in bioequivalence studies.

Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT

BACKGROUND

There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial - a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK.

DESIGN

(1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents' views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study.

SETTING

(1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

(1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures.

RESULTS

(1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed.

Reducing attrition within clinical trials: The communication of retention and withdrawal within patient information leaflets

BACKGROUND

The recruitment and retention of patients are significant methodological challenges for trials. Whilst research has focussed on recruitment, the failure to retain recruited patients and collect outcome data can lead to additional problems and potentially biased results. Research to identify effective retention strategies has focussed on influencing patient behaviour through incentives, reminders and alleviating patient burden, but has not sought to improve patient understanding of the importance of retention. Our aim is to assess how withdrawal, retention and the value of outcome data collection is described within the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) used during consent.

METHODS

Fifty adult or parent PIL from a cohort of trials starting between 2009-2012 and funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme were obtained from protocols, websites or by contacting trialists. A checklist of PIL content based on Health Research Authority (HRA) and ICH GCP Guidelines was supplemented with retention specific questions. Corresponding protocols were also evaluated to cross reference trial specific procedures with information communicated to patients.

RESULTS

PIL frequently reiterated the patient's right to withdraw at any time (n = 49, 98%), without having to give a reason and without penalty (n = 45, 90%). However, few informed patients they may be asked to give a withdrawal reason where willing (n = 6, 12%). Statements about the value of retention were infrequent (n = 8, 16%). Consent documents failed to include key content that might mitigate withdrawals, such as the need for treatment equipoise (n = 3, 6%). Nearly half the trials in the cohort (n = 23, 46%) wanted to continue to collect outcome data if patients withdraw. However, in 70% of PIL using prospective consent, withdrawal was described in generic terms leaving patients unaware of the difference between stopping treatment and all trial involvement. Nineteen (38%) trials offered withdrawing patients the option to delete existing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal and retention is poorly described within PIL and addressing this might positively impact levels of patient attrition, reducing missing data. Consent information is unbalanced, focussing on patient's rights to withdraw without accompanying information that promotes robust consent and sustained participation. With many citing altruistic reasons for participation it is essential that PIL include more information on retention and clarify withdrawal terminology so patients are aware of how they can make a valuable contribution to clinical studies. There is a need to determine how retention can be described to patients to avoid concerns of coercion. Future research is needed to explore whether the absence of information about retention at the time of consent is impacting attrition.

Does different information disclosure on placebo control affect blinding and trial outcomes? A case study of participant information leaflets of randomized placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture

BACKGROUND

While full disclosure of information on placebo control in participant information leaflets (PILs) in a clinical trial is ethically required during informed consent, there have been concerning voices such complete disclosures may increase unnecessary nocebo responses, breach double-blind designs, and/or affect direction of trial outcomes. Taking an example of acupuncture studies, we aimed to examine what participants are told about placebo controls in randomized, placebo-controlled trials, and how it may affect blinding and trial outcomes.

METHODS

Authors of published randomized, placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture were identified from PubMed search and invited to provide PILs for their trials. The collected PILs were subjected to content analysis and categorized based on degree of information disclosure on placebo. Blinding index (BI) as a chance-corrected measurement of blinding was calculated and its association with different information disclosure was examined. The impact of different information disclosure from PILs on primary outcomes was estimated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

In 65 collected PILs, approximately 57% of trials fully informed the participants of placebo control, i.e. full disclosure, while the rest gave deceitful or no information on placebo, i.e. no disclosure. Placebo groups in the studies with no disclosure tended to make more opposite guesses on the type of received intervention than those with disclosure, which may reflect wishful thinking (BI -0.21 vs. -0.16; p = 0.38). In outcome analysis, studies with no disclosure significantly favored acupuncture than those with full disclosure (standardized mean difference - 0.43 vs. -0.12; p = 0.03), probably due to enhanced expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

How participants are told about placebos can be another potential factor that may influence participant blinding and study outcomes by possibly modulating patient expectation. As we have few empirical findings on this issue, future studies are needed to determine whether the present findings are relevant to other medical disciplines and at the same time a routine practice of fully disclosing placebo information in PILs calls for reevaluation.

A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock

OBJECTIVE

The Fluids in Shock (FiSh) Trial proposes to evaluate whether restrictive fluid bolus therapy (10 mL/kg) is more beneficial than current recommended practice (20 mL/kg) in the resuscitation of children with septic shock in the UK. This qualitative feasibility study aimed to explore acceptability of the FiSh Trial, including research without prior consent (RWPC), potential barriers to recruitment and participant information for a pilot trial.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study involving parents of children who had presented to a UK emergency department or been admitted to a paediatric intensive care unit with severe infection in the previous 3 years.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one parents (seven bereaved) were interviewed 16 (median) months since their child's hospital admission (range: 1-41).

RESULTS

All parents said they would have provided consent for the use of their child's data in the FiSh Trial. The majority were unfamiliar with RWPC, yet supported its use. Parents were initially concerned about the change from currently recommended treatment, yet were reassured by explanations of the current evidence base, fluid bolus therapy and monitoring procedures. Parents made recommendations about the timing of the research discussion and content of participant information. Bereaved parents stated that recruiters should not discuss research immediately after a child's death, but supported a personalised postal 'opt-out' approach to consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings show that parents whose child has experienced severe infection supported the proposed FiSh Trial, including the use of RWPC. Parents' views informed the development of the pilot trial protocol and site staff training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15244462-results.

Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients' understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings

AIMS

The aim was to evaluate the comprehension of participants of an improved informed consent document (ICD).

METHOD

This was a randomized controlled French multicentre study performed in real conditions. Participants were adult patients undergoing screening for enrolment in biomedical research studies, who agreed to answer a validated questionnaire evaluating objective and subjective comprehension scored from 0 (no comprehension) to 100 (excellent comprehension). Patients were provided either the original ICD or an ICD modified in terms of structure and readability. The primary end point was the score of objective comprehension. The secondary end-points were the enrolment rate in the clinical study and patient characteristics associated with the score of objective comprehension.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eighty-one patients were included, 241 patients in the original ICD group and 240 patients in the modified ICD group. There was no difference between the two groups for the score of objective comprehension (original ICD 72.7 (95% CI 71.3, 74.1) vs. modified ICD 72.5 (95% CI 71.0, 74.0); P = 0.81). However, the rate of enrolment in the clinical study was lower in the group who received the modified ICD (64.4% (95% CI 58.3, 70.5)) than for the original ICD (73.0% (95% CI 67.4, 78.7)) (P = 0.042). Only female gender and high educational level were associated with a better objective comprehension.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving ICDs had no effect on participants' understanding, whereas the rate of enrolment was lower in this group. In attempts at improving potential participants' understanding of clinical research information, efforts and future trials should focus on other ways to improve comprehension.

Doing challenging research studies in a patient-centred way: a qualitative study to inform a randomised controlled trial in the paediatric emergency care setting

OBJECTIVE

To inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (called EcLiPSE) to improve the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). EcLiPSE requires the use of a controversial deferred consent process.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview and focus group study.

SETTING

8 UK support groups for parents of children who have chronic or acute health conditions and experience of paediatric emergency care.

PARTICIPANTS

17 parents, of whom 11 participated in telephone interviews (10 mothers, 1 father) and 6 in a focus group (5 mothers, 1 father). 6 parents (35%) were bereaved and 7 (41%) had children who had experienced seizures, including CSE.

RESULTS

Most parents had not heard of deferred consent, yet they supported its use to enable the progress of emergency care research providing a child's safety was not compromised by the research. Parents were reassured by tailored explanation, which focused their attention on aspects of EcLiPSE that addressed their priorities and concerns. These aspects included the safety of the interventions under investigation and how both EcLiPSE interventions are used in routine clinical practice. Parents made recommendations about the appropriate timing of a recruitment discussion, the need to individualise approaches to recruiting bereaved parents and the use of clear written information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided information to help ensure that a challenging trial was patient centred in its design. We will use our findings to help EcLiPSE practitioners to: discuss potentially threatening trial safety information with parents, use open-ended questions and prompts to identify their priorities and concerns and clarify related aspects of written trial information to assist understanding and decision-making.