Comorbidities in Recent-Onset Adult Type 1 Diabetes: A Comparison of German Cohorts

AIMS

Restrictive exclusion criteria from different study populations may limit the generalizability of the observations. By comparing two differently designed German cohorts, we assessed the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes-related complications in recent-onset adult type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This study evaluated 1511 persons with type 1 diabetes of the prospective diabetes follow-up registry (DPV) and 268 volunteers of the prospective observational German Diabetes Study (GDS) with a known diabetes duration <1 year. Participants had similar age (36 years), sex distribution (41% female) and BMI (26 kg/m²) in both cohorts.

RESULTS

The average HbA1c was 6.4 ± 0.8% in the GDS and 7.0 ± 1.1% in the DPV. Prevalence of hypertension (24%) was similar, while more DPV participants had dyslipidemia and lipid-lowering medication than GDS participants (77% vs. 41% and 7% vs. 2%, respectively; p<0.05). Prevalence of retinopathy and nephropathy was higher in DPV compared to GDS participants (10% vs. 3% and 18% vs. 7%, respectively; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy are the most frequent complications in type 1 diabetes, affecting up to every 10th patient within the first year after diagnosis, underlining the need for more stringent risk factor management already at the time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Using evidence when planning for trial recruitment: An international perspective from time-poor trialists

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting participants to trials is challenging. To date, research has focussed on improving recruitment once the trial is underway, rather than planning strategies to support it, e.g. developing trial information leaflets together with people like those to be recruited. We explored whether people involved with participant recruitment have explicit planning strategies; if so, how these are developed, and if not, what prevents effective planning.

METHODS

Design: Individual qualitative semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a Framework approach, and themes linked through comparison of data within and across stakeholder groups. Participants: 23 international trialists (UK, Canada, South Africa, Italy, the Netherlands); 11 self-identifying as 'Designers'; those who design recruitment methods, and 12 self-identifying as 'Recruiters'; those who recruit participants. Interviewees' had recruitment experience spanning diverse interventions and clinical areas. Setting: Primary, secondary and tertiary-care sites involved in trials, academic institutions, and contract research organisations supporting pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

To varying degrees, respondents had prospective strategies for recruitment. These were seldom based on rigorous evidence. When describing their recruitment planning experiences, interviewees identified a range of influences that they believe impacted success: The timing of recruitment strategy development relative to the trial start date, and who is responsible for recruitment planning.The methods used to develop trialists' recruitment strategy design and implementation skills, and when these skills are gained (i.e. before the trial or throughout).The perceived barriers and facilitators to successful recruitment planning; and how trialists modify practice when recruitment is poor.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents from all countries considered limited time and disproportionate approvals processes as major challenges to recruitment planning. Poor planning is a mistake that trialists live with throughout the trial. The experiences of our participants suggest that effective recruitment requires strategies to increase the time for trial planning, as well as access to easily implementable evidence-based strategies.

The willingness to participate in biomedical research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Objectives

To systematically review reasons for the willingness to participate in biomedical human subjects research in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs).

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 containing the domain of ‘human subjects research’ in ‘LMICs’ and determinant ‘reasons for (non)participation’. Reasons mentioned were extracted, ranked and results narratively described.

Results

Ninety‐four articles were included, 44 qualitative and 50 mixed‐methods studies. Altruism, personal health benefits, access to health care, monetary benefit, knowledge, social support and trust were the most important reasons for participation. Primary reasons for non‐participation were safety concerns, inconvenience, stigmatisation, lack of social support, confidentiality concerns, physical pain, efficacy concerns and distrust. Stigmatisation was a major concern in relation to HIV research. Reasons were similar across different regions, gender, non‐patient or patient participants and real or hypothetical study designs.

Conclusions

Addressing factors that affect (non‐)participation in the planning process and during the conduct of research may enhance voluntary consent to participation and reduce barriers for potential participants.

Should I stay or should I go? A qualitative study exploring participation in a urology clinical trial

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to identify modifiable factors to improve recruitment in a urology clinical trial of women with recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI). An embedded qualitative study was conducted with patients and recruiting clinicians in the first 8 months of the trial. We present a matrix of factors influencing how patients make decisions about trial participation.

Methods

This was a qualitative study using telephone interviews. When they were first approached about the trial, women were asked to complete an expression of interest form if they wished to be contacted for an interview. Data were analysed thematically. NVivo 10 software (Qualitative data analysis software. 10th ed: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2012) was used as a management tool.

Results

Thirty patients and 11 clinicians were interviewed. Influences on patient participation included the impact of rUTI on quality of life (QoL), understanding of antibiotic resistance, and previous experiences with antibiotics either positive or negative. Very few women who declined the trial agreed to be interviewed. However, some of those who participated had reservations about it. These included the perceived risk of trying a new treatment, trial length, and the burden of participating. One person interviewed left the trial because of repeated infections and difficulties getting general practitioner appointments.

Conclusions

A combination of factors worked to influence women to decide to participate, to remain in, or to leave the trial. A better understanding of how these factors interact and work can assist in the recruitment and retention of individual trial participants.

A Missing Piece in Clinical Trial Inspections in Latin America: Interviews With Research Subjects in Peru

Most regulatory agencies conduct clinical trial (CT) site inspections, but the experiences and behaviors of research subjects and their knowledge of the rights and obligations that ensue from participating in a CT are seldom explored. The authors assessed the technical feasibility of incorporating interviews with participants in CT inspections. This article analyzes the responses of 13 CT participants, 14% ( n = 96) of those included in three tuberculosis (TB) CTs. Participants did not object to being interviewed and provided information not obtained during regular inspections. Participants were appreciative of the agency's concern for the integrity of the CT process. Most interviewees did not understand the consent form and were unaware that they were participating in an experiment with unapproved new drugs. Participants' decision to enroll in CT related to undue inducement and therapeutic misconception. Some patients' behaviors, undisclosed to researchers, could have compromised the integrity of the data collected.

Paying patient and caregiver research participants: putting theory into practice

AIM

To review and discuss the ethical and practical considerations about paying patient and caregiver participants in nursing research and, based on this review, to develop a set of guiding principles about payment of participants.

BACKGROUND

To increase recruitment and retention, it is becoming increasingly common in nursing research to provide some form of payment to participants. The risk is that the promise of a payment may influence a patient or caregiver's decision to participate in research. However, research ethics protocols seldom provide explicit guidance about paying participants. Even where formal policies or fee schedules exist, there is little consistency in determining how payments should be calculated or administered. This has resulted in highly variable payment practices between locations, disciplines and institutions.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE with Full Text, CINAHL and Health Source (Nursing/Academic Edition) were searched for terms related to paying research participants published between 2000 - August 2016.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurse researchers must comply with international, national and institutional ethical standards. Important ethical and practical considerations should guide the decision-making process about whether to pay research participants and how to determine the nature or value of the payment. Guiding principles can support researchers by highlighting key factors that may direct their decision-making in this regard.

CONCLUSION

A deeper understanding of the fundamental ethical and practical considerations is needed to support researchers in their deliberations about paying participants in nursing research.