Using a Delphi survey to gain an international consensus on the challenges of conducting trials with adults with intellectual disabilities

A Scoping Review of the Ways Gatekeepers May Hinder or Promote Opportunities for People With Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities to Learn About Research Participation

BACKGROUND

Adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities are disproportionately excluded from participation in research, consequently increasing disparities experienced by this group. Gatekeepers, individuals who control access to research participation opportunities, may either support or pose a barrier to inclusion in research. We sought to understand how gatekeepers serve as supports and barriers to the participation of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in research and the factors that may drive their actions. We also sought to identify approaches to interacting with gatekeepers that promoted the sharing of research participation opportunities.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of manuscripts published between January 2009 and September 2024 describing gatekeeping during recruitment for adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in social/behavioural research. We conducted content analysis of 22 manuscripts to identify 'gate opening' actions (actions that support research participation) and 'gate closing' actions (actions that pose a barrier to research participation) at the point of recruitment. We also identified approaches researchers took when interacting with gatekeepers to promote gate opening actions.

RESULTS

Gatekeepers' attitudes (e.g., valuing research) and knowledge about prospective participants were associated with gate opening actions. Gatekeepers' attitudes of mistrust of researchers and/or research, deprioritisation of research and presumed incapacity of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to consent to, participate in and/or benefit from research participation were associated with gate closing actions. Gatekeepers' lack of information (e.g., about research and prospective participants) was also associated with gate closing actions. Restrictive organisational policies and gatekeepers' lack of resources (e.g., time) were also associated with gate closing actions. Approaches for interacting with gatekeepers that may foster gate opening actions included: addressing gatekeeper concerns, educating gatekeepers about the benefits of research participation and developing relationships with gatekeepers.

CONCLUSION

We identified several malleable factors that may drive gate opening and gate closing actions. Enhanced collaboration between researchers and gatekeepers may foster greater opportunities for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to learn about research opportunities.

The role of people with intellectual disability in intellectual disability research: A systematic review of Delphi studies

BACKGROUND

The way intellectual disability research is designed warrants critical examination, as the knowledge produced through these approaches informs evidence-based practices. People with lived experience should be considered experts in relation to understanding their bodies, conditions, and treatment.

METHOD

This systematic review analyses the design of Delphi studies, to determine the extent to which people with intellectual disability are involved as experts. The design of Delphi studies (involving structured feedback from experts) provides an insight into the extent that 'lived experience' is valued as a source of expert knowledge.

RESULTS

Fifty-five publications reporting on forty-nine separate Delphi studies met our inclusion criteria. Nine publications report the involvement of people with intellectual disability. However, family/informal caregivers are represented as experts in higher numbers and their voices carry greater weight.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review include guidance for practitioners and researchers to facilitate greater participatory roles of people with intellectual disability.

Psychosocial-behavioural interventions for school-aged children with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of randomised control trials

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based interventions are essential for school-aged children with intellectual disabilities to facilitate development and promote future independence.

METHODS

Using a PRISMA approach, systematic screening of five databases was undertaken. Original randomised controlled studies with psychosocial-behavioural interventions were included where participants were school aged (5-18 yrs) with documented intellectual disability. Study methodology was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred and three records were screened with 27 studies included. Studies mainly included primary school participants with mild intellectual disabilities. Most interventions focused on intellectual skills (e.g., memory, attention, literacy and mathematics) followed by adaptive skills (e.g., daily living, communication, social and education/vocation) and some focused on a combination of these.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the gap in evidence-base for social, communication and education/vocation interventions with school-aged children with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Future RCTs that bridge this knowledge gap across ages and ability are required for best practice.

Research attitudes in families of individuals with Down syndrome: importance for clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are increasingly eligible for clinical trial intervention, particularly for the treatment or prevention of Alzheimer disease (AD). Yet, little is known about research attitudes that may contribute to decisions regarding clinical trial enrollment for people with DS, a gap which is addressed in the current study.

METHODS

The Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ) is a brief validated instrument that measures cultural and social factors which influence clinical trial enrollment decisions in the general population. Applied herein to a cohort of 1002 families who have an individual with DS, this survey was carried out through a national registry (DS-Connect). In addition to the RAQ, demographic data were collected.

RESULTS

The response rate to the survey was 49.9%. Respondents were asked to complete demographic information and to respond to the 7 question RAQ. The scores were stratified by a cut point assigned a priori into those more favorable toward research participation vs. those less favorably inclined. Within this sample, nearly 95% self-identified as the primary caretaker for the individual with DS. The RAQ score analyses generally indicated favorable respondent views toward research with particularly high favorability ratings from respondents who had previously participated in research and from those who were older (P = .01 to .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first formal studies to evaluate research attitudes among relatives of individuals with DS and shows the feasibility of using this approach to answer important questions that will guide trialists developing treatments for AD in DS. Future research will require broadening the racial and ethnic mix of respondents and the role that a standardized assessment of research attitudes will have for clinical trial participation.

Unpacking the 'black box of horrendousness': a qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent

Background

Trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent encounter a range of ethical and methodological challenges, resulting in these populations frequently being excluded from research. Currently, there is little evidence regarding the nature and extent of these challenges, nor strategies to improve the design and conduct of such trials. This qualitative study explored researchers’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely with 26 researchers and healthcare professionals with experience in a range of roles, trial populations and settings across the UK. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

A number of inter-related barriers and facilitators were identified and mapped against key trial processes including during trial design decisions, navigating ethical approval, assessing capacity, identifying and involving alternative decision-makers and when revisiting consent. Three themes were identified: (1) the perceived and actual complexity of trials involving adults lacking capacity, (2) importance of having access to appropriate support and resources and (3) need for building greater knowledge and expertise to support future trials. Barriers to trials included the complexity of the legal frameworks, the role of gatekeepers, a lack of access to expertise and training, and the resource-intensive nature of these trials. The ability to conduct trials was facilitated by having prior experience with these populations, effective communication between research teams, public involvement contributions, and the availability of additional data to inform the trial. Participants also identified a range of context-specific recruitment issues and highlighted the importance of ‘designing in’ flexibility and the use of adaptive strategies which were especially important for trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants identified a need for better training and support.

Conclusions

Researchers encountered a number of barriers, including both generic and context or population-specific challenges, which may be reinforced by wider factors such as resource limitations and knowledge deficits. Greater access to expertise and training, and the development of supportive interventions and tailored guidance, is urgently needed in order to build research capacity in this area and facilitate the successful delivery of trials involving this under-served population.

Committee on High-quality Alzheimer's Disease Studies (CHADS) consensus report

BACKGROUND

Consensus guidance for the development and identification of high-quality Alzheimer's disease clinical trials is needed for protocol development and conduct of clinical trials.

METHODS

An ad hoc consensus committee was convened in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association to develop consensus recommendations.

RESULTS

Consensus was readily reached for the need to provide scientific justification, registration of trials, institutional review board oversight, conflict of interest disclosure, funding source disclosure, defined trial population, recruitment resources, definition of the intervention, specification of trial duration, appropriate payment for participant engagement, risk-benefit disclosure as part of the consent process, and the requirement to disseminate and/or publish trial results even if the study is negative.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus guidance should prove useful for the protocol development and conduct of clinical trials, and may further provide a platform for the development of education materials that may help guide appropriate clinical trial participation decisions for potential trial participants and the general public.

Developing curricular-content and systems-related impact indicators for intellectual disability awareness training for acute hospital settings: A modified International Delphi Survey

AIM

To identify, and reach consensus on, curricular-content and delivery methods, as well as ways to maximize the impact of intellectual disability awareness training programmes in acute hospital settings.

BACKGROUND

With the continuing evidence of avoidable deaths and unwarranted variations in the quality of care to people with an intellectual disability in acute hospitals, it could be purported that current training provided to hospital staff appears to be making a minimal difference in the care provided to this population.

DESIGN

A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted between June 2020-January 2021.

METHODS

International experts from primary healthcare and hospital settings, and intellectual disability health fields participated in the survey. Initial curricular-content items were developed from the literature, and based on the combined clinical and academic experience base of the authors. Items were evaluated in terms of agreement/consensus, importance and stability of responses. There were 57 expert responses in Round 1 and 45 in Round 2.

RESULTS

The consensus was reached with regard to 55 of 65 curricular-content indicators relating to Aims, Design, Content and Delivery. Ten curricular-content indicators failed to be agreed on relating to the mode of training delivery. With regard to systems-related impact indicators, 28 out of 31 reached consensus. The expert panel identified and agreed on seven system barriers that could obstruct the successful implementation of the awareness training programmes in acute hospital settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first international Delphi survey to agree on curricular-content and identify systems-related facilitators for intellectual disability awareness training. Potential system barriers have been highlighted which could be addressed by systemic improvement. Implications for developing, and robustly testing the efficacy of, intellectual disability awareness training programmes are discussed, as are the implications for other cognitively impaired populations.

IMPACT

In order to maximize the impact, investment in acute hospital staff education will need to be accompanied by wider changes to systems and structures concerning the governance of service provision for people with an intellectual disability.

Perceptions of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities about COVID-19 in Spain: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

As the world battles COVID-19, there is a need to study the perceptions of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) about the effects of the pandemic and associated lockdown on their lives. This work explores the perceptions of Spaniards with IDD during the lockdown with respect to four topics: access to information, emotional experiences, effects on living conditions and access to support.

METHODS

The topics were explored using a subset of 16 closed-ended questions from an online survey. In total, 582 participants with IDD completed the survey. The frequencies and percentages of responses to the questions were calculated, and chi-square tests performed to explore the relationship between participants' sociodemographic characteristics and responses. Given that people differed in the way in which they completed the survey, the relationship between participants' responses and completion method was also analysed.

RESULTS

Participants reported that the pandemic and subsequent lockdown have had a deleterious effect on their emotional well-being (around 60.0% of participants) and occupations (48.0% of students and 72.7% of workers). Although access to information and support was reportedly good overall, being under the age of 21 years and studying were associated with perceptions reflecting poorer access to information (V = .20 and V = .13, respectively) and well-being support (V = .15 and V = .13, respectively). Being supported by a third party to complete the survey was consistently related to perceptions of worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The study yielded data on the perceptions of people with IDD regarding the effects that COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown have had on their lives. Suggestions on how to overcome the difficulties reported and future lines of research are discussed.

Challenges to conducting randomised controlled trials with adults with intellectual disabilities: Experiences of international experts

BACKGROUND

Globally, conducting randomised controlled trials can be a complex endeavour. The complexity increases when including participants with cognitive or intellectual disabilities. A fuller understanding of the barriers and challenges that can be expected in such trials may help researchers to make their trials more inclusive for people with disabilities.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve international trial experts.

RESULTS

Eight themes emerged relating to challenges linked to: 1) participant co-morbidities, 2) participant ability levels, 3) ethics and consent, 4) the RCT methodology, 5) gatekeeping, 6) staff turnover, 7) lack of technical understanding and 8) attitudes and perceptions.

CONCLUSION

Conducting trials with cognitively disabled participants can pose unique challenges although many can be overcome with 'reasonable adjustments'. Challenges that are harder to overcome are attitudes and perceptions that people (professional staff, funding bodies, carers or fellow researchers) hold towards the utility of conducting trials with cognitively disabled populations.

An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent

BACKGROUND

There is increasing international recognition that populations included in trials should adequately represent the population treated in clinical practice; however, adults who lack the capacity to provide informed consent are frequently excluded from trials. Addressing the under-representation of groups such as those with impaired capacity to consent is essential to develop effective interventions and provide these groups with the opportunity to benefit from evidence-based care. While the spotlight has been on ensuring only appropriate and justifiable exclusion criteria are used in trials, barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity are multifactorial and complex, and addressing their under-representation will require more than merely widening eligibility criteria. This commentary draws on the literature exploring the inclusion of adults lacking the capacity to consent in research and a number of recent studies to describe the methodological, structural, and systemic factors that have been identified.

MAIN TEXT

A number of potentially modifiable factors contributing to the under-representation of adults lacking the capacity to consent in trials have been identified. In addition to restrictive eligibility criteria, methodological issues include developing appropriate interventions and outcome measures for populations with impaired capacity. Structurally determined factors include the resource-intensive nature of these trials, the requirement for more appropriate research infrastructure, and a lack of interventions to inform and support proxy decision-makers. Systemic factors include the complexities of the legal frameworks, the challenges of ethical review processes, and paternalistic attitudes towards protecting adults with incapacity from the perceived harms of research.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures needed to address under-representation include greater scrutiny of exclusion criteria by those reviewing study proposals, providing education and training for personnel who design, conduct, and review research, ensuring greater consistency in the reviews undertaken by research ethics committees, and extending processes for advance planning to include prospectively appointing a proxy for research and documenting preferences about research participation. Negative societal and professional attitudes towards the inclusion of adults with impaired capacity in research should also be addressed, and the development of trials that are more person-centred should be encouraged. Further work to conceptualise under-representation in trials for such populations may also be helpful.