Clinician engagement is critical to public engagement with clinical trials

Exploring the Prevalence and Factors Influencing Clinical Trial Awareness in US Adults with Self-Reported Depression and Anxiety

OBJECTIVE

Lack of clinical trial awareness is a crucial barrier to clinical trial enrollment. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and factors associated with clinical trial awareness among US adults with self-reported depression and anxiety.

METHODS

Data were collected from 896 adults who self-reported depression and anxiety from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey. Multinomial logistic regression was utilized to assess predictors of clinical trial awareness, particularly socio-demographic, health-related, and technological variables. Odds ratios (OR) for the associations were reported.

RESULTS

About 60.4% of adults with self-reported depression or anxiety reported being aware of clinical trials. In the multivariable regression, education level, health-related social media use, and having access to a regular provider were all significantly associated with greater odds of clinical trial awareness among individuals with depression and/or anxiety. Specifically, individuals with at least some college education (OR 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI); 1.28-3.34; p ​= ​0.004) were more likely to report awareness of clinical trials than those with less than a college education. Similarly, compared to those without access to health providers, individuals with depression and/or anxiety who had a regular provider had greater odds of clinical trial awareness (OR 2.23, 95% CI; 1.16-4.31; p ​= ​0.017). Additionally, those who reported two or more health-related uses of social media were significantly more likely to report clinical trial awareness than their counterparts who reported no health-related social media use (OR 3.17, 95% CI; 1.48-6.80; p ​= ​0.004).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that about six in 10 adults with depression and anxiety in the United States were aware of clinical trials. However, some sub-groups of patients, particularly those without access to a regular health provider, those with a lower education level, and those with limited use of social media for health purposes, remain inadequately informed and may lack awareness of available clinical trials. These findings are crucial and identify subgroups of people with mental disorders that may benefit from targeted interventions to improve clinical trial awareness.

Barriers for cancer clinical trial enrollment: A qualitative study of the perspectives of healthcare providers

Background

Barriers to clinical trial enrollment have been the subject of extensive research; however, the rate of clinical trial participation has not improved significantly over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but institutional and organizational barriers in the health care system may have a more substantial impact on clinical trial participation.

Objective

To qualitatively identify perceived barriers to clinical trial participation based on perspectives from healthcare providers.

Design

Qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. A purposive sample of 18 healthcare providers participated in an in-depth focus group session. Participants were involved in cancer care and clinical research from a large hospital in the United States Midwest region. Data were transcribed, coded, and systematically analyzed through thematic content analysis.

Results

The data revealed four levels of barriers to clinical trial enrollment, with emergent themes within each level: patient (beliefs or trust, distance to trial sites, health insurance coverage, language, and immigration status), provider (limited awareness of trial, time constraint, and non-cooperation from colleagues), clinical (eligibility criteria and clinical design), and institutional (policy and limited logistic support).

Conclusion

Healthcare providers face complex, multifaceted, and interrelated barriers to clinical trial enrollment. To overcome these barriers, health care organizations need to commit more human and financial resources, break down boundaries for more efficient inter-departmental cooperation, develop more coordinated efforts in promoting trial awareness and participation, and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers.

Clinician engagement in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial

BACKGROUND

ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is a pragmatic clinical trial examining high-dose versus low-dose aspirin among patients with cardiovascular disease. ADAPTABLE is leveraging novel approaches for clinical trial conduct to expedite study completion and reduce costs. One pivotal aspect of the trial conduct is maximizing clinician engagement.

METHODS/RESULTS

Clinician engagement can be diminished by barriers including time limitations, insufficient research infrastructure, lack of research training, inadequate compensation for research activities, and clinician beliefs. We used several key approaches to boost clinician engagement such as empowering clinician champions, including a variety of clinicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, periodic newsletters and coordinated team celebrations, and deploying novel technological solutions. Specifically, some centers generated electronic health records-based best practice advisories and research dashboards. Future large pragmatic trials will benefit from standardization of the various clinician engagement strategies especially studies leveraging electronic health records-based approaches like research dashboards. Financial or academic "credit" for clinician engagement in clinical research may boost participation rates in clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Maximizing clinician engagement is important for the success of clinical trials; the strategies employed in the ADAPTABLE trial may serve as a template for future pragmatic studies.

Global Public Attitudes About Clinical Research and Patient Experiences With Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Effective, continuous improvement in patient engagement depends on an intimate understanding of public and patient perceptions and experiences in clinical research.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the views of clinical trial participants and nonparticipants and characterize trends in these views over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this survey study, a questionnaire was administered online from May 8 to July 24, 2017, by the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP), and findings were compared with previous studies conducted in 2013 and 2015. The 2017 sample included responses from 12 427 individuals from 68 countries and represents a 10% participation rate. Similar to international assessments conducted by the CISCRP and other organizations, this study drew responses from a convenience sample; any adult older than 18 years who received an email or had online access was eligible to participate.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Significant changes were observed in the perceptions and clinical trial experiences of the public and study volunteers compared with past CISCRP studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 427 individuals (mean [SD] age, 55 [15] years; 7355 [59.2%] female; 10 085 [81.2%] white), 2194 (17.7%) of whom had participated in previous clinical research studies, responded to the survey in 2017. Findings indicated a belief in the importance of clinical research, but limited understanding of the research process persists. In 2017, a total of 10 506 individuals (84.5%) perceived clinical research to be very important to the discovery and development of new medicines; however, 4079 of 6919 respondents (59.0%) were unable to name a place where studies were conducted. A total of 11 182 respondents (90.0%) believed that clinical research is generally safe; however, 5578 of 12 427 individuals (44.9%) reported that clinical trials are rarely considered as an option when discussing treatments or medications with their physician. Clinical trial participation was perceived as inconvenient and burdensome; in the latest survey, 1075 respondents (49.0%) expressed that their clinical trial participation disrupted their daily routine.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this study may provide a foundation from which to build meaningful and effective engagement with the public and patients and revealed roadblocks, including knowledge gaps among the public, limited physician involvement in discussing clinical trials as treatment options, and the inconveniences that patients encounter after they volunteer to participate. These findings may inform patient engagement strategies and tactics and ultimately help accelerate the drug-development process.

Duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy for children with acute osteomyelitis or septic arthritis: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

There is little current consensus regarding the route or duration of antibiotic treatment for acute osteomyelitis (OM) and septic arthritis (SA) in children.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the overall feasibility and inform the design of a future randomised controlled trial (RCT) to reduce the duration of intravenous (i.v.) antibiotic use in paediatric OM and SA.

DESIGN

(1) A prospective service evaluation (cohort study) to determine the current disease spectrum and UK clinical practice in paediatric OM/SA; (2) a prospective cohort substudy to assess the use of targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in diagnosing paediatric OM/SA; (3) a qualitative study to explore families' views and experiences of OM/SA; and (4) the development of a core outcome set via a systematic review of literature, Delphi clinician survey and stakeholder consensus meeting.

SETTING

Forty-four UK secondary and tertiary UK centres (service evaluation).

PARTICIPANTS

Children with OM/SA.

INTERVENTIONS

PCR diagnostics were compared with culture as standard of care. Semistructured interviews were used in the qualitative study.

RESULTS

Data were obtained on 313 cases of OM/SA, of which 218 (61.2%) were defined as simple disease and 95 (26.7%) were defined as complex disease. The epidemiology of paediatric OM/SA in this study was consistent with existing European data. Children who met oral switch criteria less than 7 days from starting i.v. antibiotics were less likely to experience treatment failure (9.6%) than children who met oral switch criteria after 7 days of i.v. therapy (16.1% when switch was between 1 and 2 weeks; 18.2% when switch was > 2 weeks). In 24 out of 32 simple cases (75%) and 8 out of 12 complex cases (67%) in which the targeted PCR was used, a pathogen was detected. The qualitative study demonstrated the importance to parents and children of consideration of short- and long-term outcomes meaningful to families themselves. The consensus meeting agreed on the following outcomes: rehospitalisation or recurrence of symptoms while on oral antibiotics, recurrence of infection, disability at follow-up, symptom free at 1 year, limb shortening or deformity, chronic OM or arthritis, amputation or fasciotomy, death, need for paediatric intensive care, and line infection. Oral switch criteria were identified, including resolution of fever for ≥ 48 hours, tolerating oral food and medicines, and pain improvement.

LIMITATIONS

Data were collected in a 6-month period, which might not have been representative, and follow-up data for long-term complications are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

A future RCT would need to recruit from all tertiary and most secondary UK hospitals. Clinicians have implemented early oral switch for selected patients with simple disease without formal clinical trial evidence of safety. However, the current criteria by which decisions to make the oral switch are made are not clearly established or evidence based.

FUTURE WORK

A RCT in simple OM and SA comparing shorter- or longer-course i.v. therapy is feasible in children randomised after oral switch criteria are met after 7 days of i.v. therapy, excluding children meeting oral switch criteria in the first week of i.v. therapy. This study design meets clinician preferences and addresses parental concerns not to randomise prior to oral switch criteria being met.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Antenatal vaccination against Group B streptococcus: attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals in the UK towards participation in clinical trials and routine implementation

INTRODUCTION

Maternal vaccination is increasingly part of antenatal care in the UK and worldwide. Trials of Group B streptococcus vaccines are ongoing. This study investigated the attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals towards antenatal vaccination, both in routine care and a clinical trial setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Survey of 269 pregnant women, 273 midwives/obstetricians and 97 neonatal doctors across seven sites in the UK assessing attitudes towards antenatal vaccinations, knowledge of Group B streptococcus, a hypothetical Group B streptococcus vaccine, and participation in clinical vaccine trials.

RESULTS

68% of pregnant women intended to receive a vaccine during their current pregnancy (183/269) and 43% (of all respondents, 115/269) reported they would be very/fairly likely to accept a vaccine against Group B streptococcus despite only 29% (55/269) knowing what Group B streptococcus was. This increased to 69% after additional information about Group B streptococcus was provided. Twenty-four percent of pregnant women reported they would be likely to take part in a clinical trial of an unlicensed Group B streptococcus vaccine. Fifty-nine percent of maternity professionals and 74% of neonatologists would be likely to recommend participation in a Group B streptococcus vaccine trial to women, with the vast majority (>99%) willing to be involved in such a study. Incentives to take part cited by pregnant women included extra antenatal scans and the opportunity to be tested for Group B streptococcus.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women and healthcare professionals were open to the idea of an antenatal Group B streptococcus vaccine and involvement in clinical trials of such a vaccine. Education and support from midwives would be key to successful implementation.