Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self

Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the US

OBJECTIVE

To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation.

RESULTS

Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.

Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

Do people with epilepsy want to participate in an exercise intervention randomized controlled trial? - Results of a brief survey and its preliminary application

Our goal was to survey people with epilepsy (PWE) about their interest in and factors that may influence willingness and ability to participate in an exercise randomized controlled trial (RCT). A brief survey was administered to 100 PWE asking if they would take part in a hypothetical 6-week exercise intervention RCT. Follow-up questions queried reasons for and against participation and why participation would be difficult. Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated willingness to participate. The top reason for participation was "to improve overall health with exercise" (n = 49). The top reason for why participation would be difficult was they "do not have a reliable source of transportation" (n = 27). The top reason for not participating was "not interested in research participation" (n = 19). Preliminary results were used to budget for transportation in a prospective RCT (NCT04959019). Of the first 27 PWE enrolled (63 % female; 44 % African American/Black), six (50 % female; 50 % African American/Black) have used the transportation service. The majority of PWE surveyed were interested in participating in an exercise RCT, but some indicated barriers. Accommodating transportation in an ongoing RCT has facilitated recruitment of PWE who would otherwise not be able to participate. Barriers to participation should be accounted for when designing studies.

Is it ethical to use teriflunomide as an active comparator in phase 3 trials?

Ethical concerns have been raised about the practice of using teriflunomide, an oral licensed disease-modifying therapy, as an active comparator in phase 3 multiple sclerosis (MS) trials. The assumption is based on the perceived low efficacy of teriflunomide as judged by its effect on relapses and focal MRI activity. However, when you look beyond focal inflammation, teriflunomide has a robust impact on disability progression and a similar effect to the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies on slowing down the accelerated brain volume loss associated with MS. Teriflunomide is also more effective when used second or third line. The other classes of disease-modifying therapies have problems with their use as active comparators in clinical trials. Using a non-inferiority or equivalence trial design has its own unique set of regulatory and ethical challenges and is not necessarily a solution. There are also economic, altruistic and pragmatic reasons for continuing to use teriflunomide as an active comparator in MS clinical trials. An online survey indicates that the majority of the MS community feels it is still ethical to randomise subjects to teriflunomide and that procedures can be put in place to protect trial subjects randomised to teriflunomide. Therefore, we still have equipoise, and teriflunomide comparator trials are ethical.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Background

Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking.

Objective

The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome.

Design

This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals.

Setting

National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation.

Results

The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy.

Conclusions

The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Expectations of Tele-Yoga in Persons With Long-Term Illness: Qualitative Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Yoga is a mind-body exercise that has demonstrated its feasibility and safety even for individuals with severe long-term illness. Engaging in yoga has the potential to yield positive effects on both physical and mental well-being. Tele-yoga is a novel approach to rehabilitation in which participants practice group yoga with a live-streamed yoga instructor digitally via a tablet. This is especially beneficial for individuals who may find it difficult to leave their homes to participate in an exercise session. As part of our ongoing evaluation of the tele-yoga intervention in individuals with long-term illness, we have undertaken an exploration of participants' expectations regarding yoga in general and tele-yoga specifically. Understanding these expectations is crucial, as they can significantly impact their satisfaction with treatment and care and influence overall intervention outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the expectations of tele-yoga among individuals with long-term illness before starting a tele-yoga intervention.

METHODS

The study employed an inductive qualitative design and is part of a process evaluation within an ongoing randomized controlled trial. A total of 89 participants were interviewed before the start of the tele-yoga intervention. The interview guide encompassed questions about their general perceptions of yoga and the specific expectations they held for the upcoming tele-yoga sessions. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants expressed their expectations for tele-yoga, focusing on the anticipated improvements in physical function and overall health. These expectations included hopes for reduced respiratory issues; relief from discomfort, aches, and pains; as well as increased physical flexibility, coordination, and overall well-being. Besides, they expected to achieve improved psychological well-being and performance; to acquire strategies to manage stress, anger, and anxiety; and to have their motivational drive strengthened and influence other activities. Participants described tele-yoga as a new and exciting technical solution that would facilitate the delivery of yoga. A few participants remained a little hesitant toward the use of technology, with some expectations based on previous experiences. When asked about expectations, some had no idea about what to expect. Participants also had varying perspectives on yoga, with some finding it mysterious and difficult to understand. Participants expressed thoughts that they found the idea of tele-yoga taking place in groups exciting and enjoyable. They also had expectations that being part of a group would provide opportunities for mutual inspiration and encouragement among the group members.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations before an intervention can provide valuable insights into understanding the factors influencing adherence to tele-yoga and its outcomes. Our findings provide a wide range of expectations for tele-yoga, spanning both physical and mental aspects. Moreover, the technology's potential to facilitate yoga delivery and the supportive nature of digital group interactions were evident from the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03703609; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03703609.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants.

Objective

To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022.

Intervention

Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants.

Results

Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

Mild matters: trial learnings and importance of community engagement in research for early identified bilateral mild hearing loss

Introduction

Early identification of mild hearing loss has resulted in early hearing amplification without adequate evidence of effectiveness. This paper describes learnings from a pilot trial, combined with a qualitative study, to highlight the importance of community engagement in designing research studies to determine whether early amplification benefits young children with bilateral mild hearing loss.

Methods

PART 1 of the study is a proof-of-concept non-blinded multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of hearing device fitting vs. no fitting aimed to gather preliminary data and determine its acceptability/feasibility in children <2 years old with bilateral mild hearing loss.

Results

PART 2 is a qualitative study to understand the barriers/enablers to RCT participation. Of 40 potentially eligible families, nine (23%) declined, three were uncontactable (7%), 26 (65%) ineligible: of these, nine (35%) did not meet hearing threshold inclusion criteria, 11 (42%) were already fitted or had made decisions on fitting hearing device, two (7%) had conductive loss and four (16%) were ineligible for other reasons. Two of 11 (18%) eligible families were randomised. With the limited sample size, outcome measures were not compared between groups. Both participants completed the trial, reported the RCT to be acceptable, and neither changed group post-enrolment.

Discussion

Whilst recruitment uptake could potentially be increased by altering the eligibility criteria, better communication with and reimbursement of clinicians as recruiters, and improving awareness of the study amongst external stakeholders, the RCT methodology does not conform to family-centred practice, and potentially raises ethical concerns regarding potential adverse consequences of not offering early amplification. Parental perception of losing control over choice of management due to randomisation is not an easily modifiable factor. Alternative methodological approaches without randomisation are required to determine whether hearing amplification benefits infants with mild hearing loss.Clinical Trial Registration: identifier [ACTRN12618001608257].

The importance of clinical importance when determining the target difference in sample size calculations

Recently, it was argued that clinically important differences should play no role in sample size calculations. Instead, it was proposed that sample size calculations should focus on setting realistic estimates of treatment benefit. We disagree, and argue in this article that considering the importance of a target difference is necessary in the context of randomised controlled trials of effectiveness, particularly definitive phase III trials. Ignoring clinical importance could have serious ethical and practical consequences.

Factors related to eczema clinical trial participation among adult patients and caregivers

Background

Eczema can be difficult to treat due to its chronic, heterogeneous nature. Effective long-term treatments for adults and children are needed. Little is known about what considerations influence eczema patient and caregiver decision-making regarding clinical trial participation (CTP). This study identifies factors that adult patients and caregivers consider important for CTP and determines if differences exist between these groups.

Methods

A 46-question survey was administered May 1-June 6, 2020, to adults and caregivers of children with eczema. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a series of factors when considering CTP; adults and caregivers were compared.

Results

Out of 31 total factors queried, eleven factors differed significantly in importance ratings between adults (n = 470) and caregivers (n = 134). The route of therapy (p = 0.030), side effects (p = 0.014), washout period (p = 0.028), receiving a placebo (p = 0.027), rescue therapy option (p = 0.033), access to test drug after trial (p = 0.027), sticking with the clinical trial regimen (p = 0.025), fit with work/school (p = 0.005), impact on overall health (p = 0.008), and satisfaction with current treatment (p = 0.033) were all more likely to be rated as important by caregivers than by adult patients. Only altruism was rated more highly by adult patients than caregivers (p = 0.027).

Conclusions

Caregivers are more likely than adults to attribute high importance to factors that may affect their child's eczema or well-being when considering CTP. Patient-centered CTP education materials and decision aids may support patients and caregivers in CTP decision-making.

Interpersonal Values of Patients Participating in Phase II-III Clinical Trials: Implications for Clinical Trial Representativeness

BACKGROUND

An individual's personal values strongly influence their immediate and long-term decisions. Psychological heterogeneity in clinical trial populations contributes to selection bias and may affect treatment outcomes and inevitably trial results.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to characterize for the first time the main interpersonal values of patients who participated in Phase II and III clinical trials.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study included 200 participants from 4 different hospitals who participated in a Phase II or III clinical trial. Patients from different therapeutic areas were included in this study. The patients' interpersonal values were studied using the Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV). The SIV scale is grouped into six subscales that assess specific personal values: (1) support, the need to be treated with kindness and to receive encouragement from other people; (2) conformity, the extent to which one does what is acceptable and considered socially correct; (3) recognition, the need to be highly regarded and admired, to be considered important and recognized by others; (4) independence, the extent to which individuals feel free to make their own decisions; (5) benevolence, the capacity to understand and show generosity towards the less fortunate; and (6) leadership, the value ascribed to coordinating the work of others, being selected for a leadership position, and being in a position to tell others what to do. The results obtained from the patient population were classified using the following categories: "very high" (P95-P99), "high" (P70-90), "medium" (P35-65) low" (P10-30), or "very low" (P1-5), and subsequently compared with those of the Portuguese normative population.

RESULTS

Compared with the normative population, regardless of the patient's underlying disease, the percentile frequency distributions were significantly higher for the independence (p < 0.001) and benevolence (p < 0.001) subscales, and significantly lower for the leadership (p < 0.001) and recognition (p < 0.001) subscales in the patient population. Patient distribution according to underlying disease differed significantly relative differences in distribution relative to the normative population for the majority of subscales. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), heart failure, myocardial infarction, lung cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis patients were those for which the greatest differences were observed across diseases, while stroke, multiple sclerosis, and HIV patients showed the least differences relative to the normative population.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel analysis of the interpersonal values of patients that participate in Phase II and III clinical trials revealed that the patients' interpersonal values largely differed from those of the Portuguese normative population. Better understanding the implications of these findings for clinical trial representativeness and outcomes is of crucial importance.

Perspectives of Youths on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care Research and Clinical Care

Importance

Understanding the views and values of patients is of substantial importance to developing the ethical parameters of artificial intelligence (AI) use in medicine. Thus far, there is limited study on the views of children and youths. Their perspectives contribute meaningfully to the integration of AI in medicine.

Objective

To explore the moral attitudes and views of children and youths regarding research and clinical care involving health AI at the point of care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study recruited participants younger than 18 years during a 1-year period (October 2021 to March 2022) at a large urban pediatric hospital. A total of 44 individuals who were receiving or had previously received care at a hospital or rehabilitation clinic contacted the research team, but 15 were found to be ineligible. Of the 29 who consented to participate, 1 was lost to follow-up, resulting in 28 participants who completed the interview.

Exposures

Participants were interviewed using vignettes on 3 main themes: (1) health data research, (2) clinical AI trials, and (3) clinical use of AI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thematic description of values surrounding health data research, interventional AI research, and clinical use of AI.

Results

The 28 participants included 6 children (ages, 10-12 years) and 22 youths (ages, 13-17 years) (16 female, 10 male, and 3 trans/nonbinary/gender diverse). Mean (SD) age was 15 (2) years. Participants were highly engaged and quite knowledgeable about AI. They expressed a positive view of research intended to help others and had strong feelings about the uses of their health data for AI. Participants expressed appreciation for the vulnerability of potential participants in interventional AI trials and reinforced the importance of respect for their preferences regardless of their decisional capacity. A strong theme for the prospective use of clinical AI was the desire to maintain bedside interaction between the patient and their physician.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, children and youths reported generally positive views of AI, expressing strong interest and advocacy for their involvement in AI research and inclusion of their voices for shared decision-making with AI in clinical care. These findings suggest the need for more engagement of children and youths in health care AI research and integration.

Recruitment to a trial of antipsychotic reduction: impact of an acceptability study

OBJECTIVES

Pre-trial acceptability studies may boost recruitment, especially in trials comparing distinctly different interventions. We evaluated the impact of an acceptability study on recruitment to a randomised trial of antipsychotic reduction versus maintenance treatment and explored demographic and clinical predictors of subsequent enrolment.

METHODS

Participants with a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder who were taking antipsychotic medication were interviewed about their views of taking part in a future trial.

RESULTS

In a sample of 210 participants, 151 (71.9%) expressed an interest in taking part in the future trial, 16 (7.6%) said they might be interested, and 43 (20.5%) said they were not. Altruistic reasons were most commonly given for wanting to take part, and concern about randomisation for not wanting to. Ultimately 57 people enrolled in the trial (27.1% of the original sample). Eighty-five people who initially expressed an interest did not enrol due to declining or not being eligible (for clinical reasons). Women and people from a white ethnic background were more likely to enrol in the trial, but no illness or treatment-related characteristics were associated with enrolment.

CONCLUSION

An acceptability study can be a useful tool for recruitment to challenging trials, but it may over-estimate recruitment.

Public reporting of clinical trial findings as an ethical responsibility to participants: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To understand how the experiences and views of trial participants, trial investigators and others connected to clinical trial research relate to whether researchers have a duty to participants to publicly report research findings.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Semistructured interviews held in person or by telephone between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

34 participants, including 10 clinical trial participants, 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators and 3 research ethics board members.

ANALYSIS

We conducted a thematic analysis, including qualitative coding of interview transcripts and identification of key themes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Key themes identified through qualitative coding of interview data.

RESULTS

Most clinical trial participants felt that reporting clinical trial results is important. Accounts of trial participants suggest their contributions are part of a reciprocal relationship involving the expectation that research will advance medical knowledge. Similarly, comments from trial investigators suggest that reporting trial results is part of reciprocity with trial participants and is a necessary part of honouring informed consent. Accounts of trial investigators suggest that when drug trials are not reported, this may undermine informed consent in subsequent trials by withholding information on harms or efficacy relevant to informed decisions on whether to conduct or enroll in future trials of similar drugs.

CONCLUSION

The views of trial participants, trial investigators and others connected to clinical trial research in Canada suggest that researchers have an obligation to participants to publicly report clinical trial results and that reporting results is necessary for honouring informed consent.

S110-Opioid-free analgesia after outpatient general surgery: A qualitative study focused on the perspectives of patients and clinicians involved in a pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid-free analgesia (OFA) may mitigate opioid-related harms after outpatient general surgery; however, the comparative effectiveness of this approach should be assessed in robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Undertaking an RCT on OFA raises important practical concerns, including surgeon and patient hesitation regarding pain management without opioids. We conducted a qualitative study to explore patients' and clinicians' perspectives and experiences with a pilot trial focused on OFA after outpatient general surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing outpatient abdominal and breast procedures were randomized to receive post-discharge opioid analgesia (OA) or OFA. Semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians involved in the trial were conducted to elicit personal perspectives and experiences. Purposive sampling for maximum variation was used to recruit participants with diverse characteristics. Transcribed interviews were assessed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ten patients (5 abdominal, 5 breast) and 10 clinicians (6 surgeons, 2 anesthesiologists, 2 nurses) were interviewed. Five major themes emerged: readiness for trial engagement, pre-trial thoughts about the interventions, postoperative pain experiences, intervention acceptability, and trial refinement. Most patients were open to OFA. Clinicians expressed willingness to prescribe OFA, particularly after less invasive procedures and when using peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs). Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of pain control and side effects of non-opioid drugs (e.g., NSAID-induced bleeding, kidney injury). Overall, participants were enthusiastic about the trial and recognized its relevance; clinicians praised the study design and organization; and patients valued the use of electronic questionnaires. Suggestions for improvements included preventing potential bias arising from the use of PNBs (i.e., via standardization or stratification) and reducing patient burden (i.e., decreasing postoperative questionnaires).

CONCLUSION

Patients and clinicians who participated in a pilot RCT generally accept the clinical equipoise between OA versus OFA after outpatient general surgery and recognize the need for methodologically robust trials to inform evidence-based analgesia prescribing.

Primary and secondary data in emergency medicine health services research - a comparative analysis in a regional research network on multimorbid patients

BACKGROUND

This analysis addresses the characteristics of two emergency department (ED) patient populations defined by three model diseases (hip fractures, respiratory, and cardiac symptoms) making use of survey (primary) and routine (secondary) data from hospital information systems (HIS). Our aims were to identify potential systematic inconsistencies between both data samples and implications of their use for future ED-based health services research.

METHODS

The research network EMANET prospectively collected primary data (n=1442) from 2017-2019 and routine data from 2016 (n=9329) of eight EDs in a major German city. Patient populations were characterized using socio-structural (age, gender) and health- and care-related variables (triage, transport to ED, case and discharge type, multi-morbidity). Statistical comparisons between descriptive results of primary and secondary data samples for each variable were conducted using binomial test, chi-square goodness-of-fit test, or one-sample t-test according to scale level.

RESULTS

Differences in distributions of patient characteristics were found in nearly all variables in all three disease populations, especially with regard to transport to ED, discharge type and prevalence of multi-morbidity. Recruitment conditions (e.g., patient non-response), project-specific inclusion criteria (e.g., age and case type restrictions) as well as documentation routines and practices of data production (e.g., coding of diagnoses) affected the composition of primary patient samples. Time restrictions of recruitment procedures did not generate meaningful differences regarding the distribution of characteristics in primary and secondary data samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and secondary data types maintain their advantages and shortcomings in the context of emergency medicine health services research. However, differences in the distribution of selected variables are rather small. The identification and classification of these effects for data interpretation as well as the establishment of monitoring systems in the data collection process are pivotal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00011930 (EMACROSS), DRKS00014273 (EMAAGE), NCT03188861 (EMASPOT).

Factors influencing participation in randomised clinical trials among patients with early Barrett's neoplasia: a multicentre interview study

OBJECTIVES

Strong recruitment and retention into randomised controlled trials involving invasive therapies is a matter of priority to ensure better achievement of trial aims. The BRIDE (Barrett's Randomised Intervention for Dysplasia by Endoscopy) Study investigated the feasibility of undertaking a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing argon plasma coagulation and radiofrequency ablation, following endoscopic resection, for the management of early Barrett's neoplasia. This paper aims to identify factors influencing patients' participation in the BRIDE Study and determine their views regarding acceptability of a potential future trial comparing surgery with endotherapy.

DESIGN

A semistructured telephone interview study was performed, including both patients who accepted and declined to participate in the BRIDE trial. Interview data were analysed using the constant comparison approach to identify recurring themes.

SETTING

Interview participants were recruited from across six UK tertiary centres where the BRIDE trial was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 18 participants, including 11 participants in the BRIDE trial and 7 who declined.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified centred around interviewees' decision to accept or decline participation in the BRIDE trial and a potential future trial comparing endotherapy with surgery: (1) influence of the recruitment process and participant-recruiter relationship; (2) participants' views of the design and aim of the study; (3) conditional altruism as a determining factor and (4) participants' perceptions of surgical risks versus less invasive treatments.

CONCLUSION

We identified four main influences to optimising recruitment and retention to a randomised controlled trial comparing endotherapies in patients with early Barrett's-related neoplasia. These findings highlight the importance of qualitative research to inform the design of larger randomised controlled trials.

Primary care patients' experiences of video consultations for depression and anxiety: a qualitative interview study embedded in a randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Integrated mental health care models that provide rapid access to video consultations with mental health specialists for primary care patients are a promising short-term, low-threshold treatment option and may reduce waiting times for specialist care. This qualitative study, nested within a randomized feasibility trial, aimed to explore participants' views on this type of care model, its influence on the lived experience of patients, and barriers and facilitators for its delivery.

METHODS

In five primary care practices, 50 adults with depression and/or anxiety were randomly assigned to either an integrated care model (maximum of five video consultations with a mental health specialist) or usual care (primary care or another treatment option). Prior to obtaining the trial results, interviews were held with participants who had received video consultations. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty of the 23 patients who received video consultations participated in the interviews. Patients engaged well with the care model and reported positive effects on their most pressing needs, while denying safety concerns. Generally, they perceived the usability of video consultations as high, and temporary connectivity failures were not considered a substantial barrier. We identified two key mechanisms of impacts on the patients' lived experience: fast access to specialist mental healthcare and the emerging rapport with the specialist. In particular, patients with no prior mental healthcare experience indicated that familiarity with the primary practice and their physician as a gatekeeper were important facilitators of proactive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

From the patients' perspective, mental health care models integrating video consultations with mental health specialists into primary care are linked to positive lived experiences. Our findings imply that primary care physicians should promote their role as gatekeepers to (1) actively engage patients, (2) apply integrated care models to provide a familiar and safe environment for conducting mental health care video consultations, and (3) be able to regularly assess whether certain patients need in-person services. Scaling up such models may be worthwhile in real-world service settings, where primary care physicians are faced with high workloads and limited specialist services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00015812.

Parental Views of Facilitators and Barriers to Research Participation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low enrollment within pediatric research increases the cost of research, decreases generalizability, and threatens to exacerbate existing health disparities. To assess barriers and facilitators to pediatric research participation and evaluate differences by enrollment status.

METHODS

Data Sources include PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. Study selection include peer reviewed articles that contained information related to facilitators and barriers to the parental decision whether to enroll their child in research and included the views of parents who declined. We extracted barriers and facilitators to research, enrollment status, and study characteristics, including study design, quality, and patient population.

RESULTS

Seventy articles were included for analysis. Facilitators of participation included: benefits, trust, support of research, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common facilitators within those categories included health benefit to child (N = 39), altruism (N = 30), and the importance of research (N = 26). Barriers to participation included: study-related concerns, burdens of participation, lack of trust, general research concerns, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common barriers within those categories included risks to child (N = 46), burdens of participation (N = 35), and the stress of the decision (N = 29). We had a limited ability to directly compare by enrollment status and no ability to analyze interactions between facilitators and barriers. We only included studies written in English.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified key facilitators and barriers to research participation in pediatrics. The findings from this review may guide researchers aiming to create interventions to improve the parental experience of recruitment for pediatric studies and to optimize enrollment rates.

Can HIV vaccines be shared fairly? Perspectives from Tanzania

Background

For over 35 years, Africa has continued to host HIV vaccine trials geared towards overturning the HIV/AIDs pandemic in the continent. However, the methods of sharing the vaccines, when available remain less certain. Therefore, the study aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives in the global South, in this case, Tanzania, on how HIV vaccines ought to be fairly shared.

Methods

The study deployed a qualitative case study design. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with a total of 37 purposively selected participants. This included researchers, institutional review board members, a policymaker, HIV/AIDS advocates, and community advisory board members. The data obtained were inductively and deductively analyzed.

Results

Findings indicate that HIV vaccines can be shared fairly under the principles of distributive justice (contribution, need and equality). Thus, contribution-based sharing ought to be utilized upon the necessity to prioritize vaccine access or subsidized trial benefits to host communities. Need-based sharing ought to be considered for non-host communities that are at an increased risk of HIV infection. Lastly, equal-based sharing would be useful at later stages of vaccine distribution or when the aforementioned principles are deemed morally inappropriate. However, none of the benefit-sharing approaches is free of limitations and a counterbalancing sense of unfairness.

Conclusion

Fair sharing of HIV vaccines, when available, ought to be informed by the contribution, need and equality principles of distributive justice. Countries in the global south including Tanzania are likely to be prioritized during the distribution of the HIV vaccines due to their participation in HIV vaccine trials and due to the disproportionate HIV burden evident in the region.

Enhancing opportunistic recruitment and retention in primary care trials: lessons learned from a qualitative study embedded in the Cranberry for Urinary Tract Infection (CUTI) feasibility trial

Background

Opportunistic recruitment in primary care is challenging due to the inherent unpredictability of incident conditions, and workload and time pressures. Many clinical trials do not recruit to target, leading to equivocal answers to research questions. Learning from the experiences of patients and recruiters to trials of incident conditions has the potential to improve recruitment and retention to future trials, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of research findings. The aim of this research was to learn from the trial experiences of UTI patients and recruiters to the Cranberry for UTI (CUTI) trial, to help plan an adequately powered trial of similar design.

Methods

One-to-one semi-structured interviews were embedded within the CUTI feasibility trial, an open-label, randomised feasibility trial of cranberry extract for symptoms of acute, uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) in primary care. Interviews were conducted with a sample of: CUTI trial participants; non-CUTI trial UTI patients; and, recruiters to the CUTI trial. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty-six patients with UTI and eight recruiters (nurses and GPs) to the CUTI trial were interviewed. Three themes were developed around: reasons for participating in research; barriers to opportunistic recruitment; and, UTI patients’ experiences of trial procedures. Recruiters found that targeted electronic prompts directed at healthcare practitioners based in clinics where patients with incident conditions were likely to present (e.g. minor illness clinic) were more effective than generic prompts (e.g. desk prompts) at filtering patients from their usual clinical pathway to research clinics. Using a script to explain the delayed antibiotic trial group to patients was found to be helpful, and may have served to boost recruitment. For UTI patients, using an electronic diary to rate their symptoms was considered an acceptable medium, and often preferable to using a paper diary or mobile phone application.

Conclusions

The use of targeted prompts directed at clinicians, a script to explain trial groups that may be deemed less desirable, and an appropriate diary format for patient-reported outcomes, may help to improve trial recruitment and retention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01796-7.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care.

DESIGN

Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded.

SETTING

Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy.

INTERVENTION

Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm², irradiance 50 mW/cm², exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm². There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm.

LIMITATIONS

The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services.

FUTURE WORK

Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acceptability of integrating smoking cessation treatment into routine care for people with mental illness: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPTs) Services could offer smoking cessation treatment to improve physical and psychological outcomes for service users, but it currently does not. This study aimed to understand participants' views and experiences of receiving a novel smoking cessation intervention as part of the ESCAPE trial (intEgrating Smoking Cessation treatment As part of usual Psychological care for dEpression and anxiety). We used the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to understand the (i) acceptability of the integrated smoking cessation treatment, (ii) views of psychological well-being practitioners' (PWPs) ability to deliver the smoking cessation treatment and (iii) positive and negative impacts of smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study embedded within a feasibility randomized-controlled trial (ESCAPE) in primary care services in the United Kingdom (IAPT). Thirty-six participants (53% female) from both usual care and intervention arms of the ESCAPE trial, including both quitters and nonquitters, were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a framework approach to thematic analysis, using the COM-B as a theoretical frame.

RESULTS

Psychological Capability: Integrated smoking cessation treatment was acceptable and encouraged participants to reflect on their mental health. Some participants found it difficult to understand nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

MOTIVATION

Participants were open to change during the event of presenting to IAPT. Some described being motivated to take part in the intervention by curiosity, to see whether quitting smoking would help their mental health. Physical Opportunity: IAPT has a natural infrastructure for supporting integrated treatment, but there were some barriers such as session duration and interventions feeling segmented. Social Opportunity: Participants viewed PWPs as having good interpersonal skills to deliver a smoking cessation intervention.

CONCLUSION

People with common mental illness generally accepted integrated smoking cessation and mental health treatment. Smoking cessation treatment fits well within IAPT's structure; however, there are barriers to implementation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Before data collection, we consulted with people with lived experience of smoking and/or mental illness and lay public members regarding the aims, design and interview schedules. After analysis, two people with lived experience of smoking and mental illness individually gave feedback on the final themes and quotes.

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of—more or less well-justified—ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical “spine” of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical “skeleton” of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

Increasing physician participation as subjects in scientific and quality improvement research

Background

The twenty-first century has witnessed an exponential increase in healthcare quality research. As such activities become more prevalent, physicians are increasingly needed to participate as subjects in research and quality improvement (QI) projects. This raises an important ethical question: how should physicians be remunerated for participating as research and/or QI subjects?

Financial versus non-monetary incentives for participation

Research suggests participation in research and QI is often driven by conditional altruism, the idea that although initial interest in enrolling in research is altruistic or prosocial, decisions to actually perform study tasks are cost–benefit driven. Thus, the three models commonly employed to appropriately compensate participants (in-kind compensation such as travel reimbursement, paying market rates for the subject’s time, and paying market rates for the activity asked of the participant) are a poor fit when the participant is a clinician, largely due to the asymmetry between cost and benefit or value to the participant. Non-monetary alternatives such as protected time for participation, continuing education or maintenance of certification credit, or professional development materials, can provide viable avenues for reducing this asymmetry.

Conclusion

Research and QI are integral to the betterment of medicine and healthcare. To increase physician participation in these activities as the subject of study, new models are needed that clarify the physician’s role in research and QI as a subject. Non-monetary approaches are recommended to successfully and ethically encourage research and QI participation, and thus incorporate these activities as a normal part of the ethical clinician’s and successful learning healthcare system’s world view.

Recruiting and retaining participants in three randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions conducted on acute psychiatric wards: top ten tips for success

BACKGROUND

It is essential to conduct randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions on acute psychiatric wards to build a robust evidence base for clinical practice.

AIMS

This paper aims to share strategies from three different in-patient trials that successfully recruited and retained participants, to disseminate good practice for the conduct of future trials in this challenging and complex clinical setting.

METHOD

We present strategies from three in-patient trials of psychological interventions: TULIPS (Talk, Understand, Listen for Inpatient Settings), amBITION (Brief Talking Therapies on Wards) and INSITE (Inpatient Suicide Intervention and Therapy Evaluation). All studies recruited participants from acute in-patient wards, initiated therapy within the in-patient setting and followed up on participants post-discharge.

RESULTS

We summarise our recommendations for good practice in the form of ten top tips for success, based on our collective experience of conducting trials on psychiatric wards. Key themes relate to the importance of relationships between the research team and clinical staff; good stakeholder involvement and getting early buy-in from the team; and adapting to the particular demands of the clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Sharing good practice recommendations can help reduce research waste arising from poor recruitment and/or retention in future in-patient clinical trials.

Decision making in a clinical trial for a life-threatening illness: Therapeutic expectation, not misconception

Potential participants for clinical trials which aim to define treatments for life-threatening conditions are often extremely unwell. When exploring why individuals participate in clinical trials one common observation is a misplaced expectation of personal benefit - a therapeutic misconception. The care offered in some clinical trials is of a higher standard than is routinely available and this has led to criticism around the freedom of choice to enrol - structural coercion. We embedded an ethnographic study within a randomised controlled trial for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Gaborone, Botswana and Kampala, Uganda. We aimed to gain an understanding of decision-making around the trial and how this was impacted by the study design and broader social context. We conducted in-depth interviews with trial participants, surrogate decision makers and researchers, combined these with direct observations and analysed data using thematic analysis. Between January 2020 and June 2021 we interviewed 89 individuals. We found previous exposure to and awareness of clinical research was limited, as was understanding of the trial objectives and design. Through observations and engagement with healthcare facilities decision-makers were able to identify the trial as providing the best possible chance of survival. Hesitation and reluctance were mostly due to fear of lumbar punctures which was sometimes based on rumours but often based on tragic personal experience. Despite fear, and sometimes conviction that they would die, individuals agreed to consent, often against the wishes of family members. Reassurance and confidence came from trust in routine care staff and the research team but also from fellow participants and their surrogates. We argue that participants made informed decisions based on a therapeutic expectation from the trial and that rather than being the result of structural coercion this was an informed and voluntary choice.

Comparing the effects of a patient-designed-and-informed participant information leaflet in comparison with a standard, researcher-designed information leaflet on recruitment, retention and understanding: A study-within-a-trial

Background and aim

The process of trial recruitment is vital, given its impact on resources, statistical power and the validity of findings. A participant information leaflet (PIL) is often the initial and primary source of information engaged by potential participants during recruitment. Research suggests that a variety of manipulations to a PIL can be made during its development to enhance understanding, readability and accessibility. In light of this, PIL-design led by Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) may also yield positive effects in this respect, as well as consent and retention. This study-within-a-trial (SWAT) compared the effects of a PPI-developed PIL with a standard, researcher-developed PIL on rates of consent, retention, decision certainty, understanding, readability, accessibility, likeability and decision to consent.

Method

This SWAT used a double-blind, two-armed randomised design. The SWAT was conducted within a host trial of cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis.

Results

A total of 234 people expressed interest in the trial, of which 94 were retained at 6-month follow up. Results revealed no effects on levels of consent and retention between the two PIL groups.

Conclusions

These null effects provide interesting points of discussion and important implications for not only future research on PILs, but also for future research that involves recruitment to health-related interventions.

Feasibility Trial of Yoga Programme for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention (YOGA-DP) among High-Risk People in India: A Qualitative Study to Explore Participants' Trial- and Intervention-Related Barriers and Facilitators

Yoga-based interventions can be effective in preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We developed a Yoga programme for T2DM prevention (YOGA-DP) and conducted a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) among high-risk people in India. This qualitative study's objective was to identify and explore participants' trial- and intervention-related barriers and facilitators. The feasibility trial was conducted at two Yoga centres in New Delhi and Bengaluru, India. In this qualitative study, 25 trial participants (13 intervention group, 12 control group) were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using deductive logic and an interpretative phenomenological approach. Amongst intervention and control participants, key barriers to trial participation were inadequate information about recruitment and randomisation processes and the negative influence of non-participants. Free blood tests to aid T2DM prevention, site staff's friendly behaviour and friends' positive influence facilitated trial participation. Amongst intervention participants, readability and understanding of the programme booklets, dislike of the Yoga diary, poor quality Yoga mats, difficulty in using the programme video, household commitment during home sessions, unplanned travel, difficulty in practising Yoga poses, hesitation in attending programme sessions with the YOGA-DP instructor of the opposite sex and mixed-sex group programme sessions were key barriers to intervention participation. Adequate information was provided on T2DM prevention and self-care, good venue and other support provided for programme sessions, YOGA-DP instructors' positive behaviour and improvements in physical and mental well-being facilitated intervention participation. In conclusion, we identified and explored participants' trial- and intervention-related barriers and facilitators. We identified an almost equal number of barriers (n = 12) and facilitators (n = 13); however, intervention-related barriers and facilitators were greater than for participating in the trial. These findings will inform the design of the planned definitive RCT design and intervention and can also be used to design other Yoga interventions and RCTs.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

What do parents think of using informational videos to support recruitment for parenting trials? A qualitative study

Background

Lower than expected recruitment and retention rates are common challenges in parenting trials—particularly for community-based trials targeting parents of young children that rely on face-to-face recruitment by frontline workers. Recruitment requires parental informed consent, yet information sheets have been criticized for being lengthy and complex, and particularly challenging for parents with low literacy. Recent innovations include ‘talking head’ information videos. This paper aims to explore parent perceptions of using a ‘talking head’ video to support informed consent, recruitment, and retention procedures in parenting trials.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of 24 mothers recruited after their final follow-ups in two different parenting trials in Denmark. Before consenting to participate in the trials, parents were invited to view a video of a member of the study team giving information about the study, and again before the interviews for the current study. The audio data was transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

We identified three overarching themes: (1) general impression of the video, (2) thoughts on participation in research, and (3) recruitment and retention. Participants were generally positive in their appraisal of the two talking head informational videos. We found that participants felt that a mix of paper-based and video-based sources of information would enable them to make an informed choice about whether to participate in a research study. We also found that a professionally produced video featuring a key member of the study team produced a feeling of commitment to the study that could impact retention rates.

Conclusions

Informational videos are acceptable to parents; however, co-production or participant/patient involvement in the development of such videos is recommended. Informational videos may not increase recruitment but have the potential for improving retention. Key design recommendations are to ensure a ‘professional’ look to the video, to supplement videos with paper-based information, to keep the length to < 3 min, and for the ‘talking head’ part to feature a key member of the study team.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05826-0.

Examining study participants' decision-making and ethics-related experiences in a dietary community randomized controlled trial in Malawi

BACKGROUND

The participant recruitment process is a key ethical pivot point when conducting robust research. There is a need to continuously review and improve recruitment processes in research trials and to build fair and effective partnerships between researchers and participants as an important core element in ensuring the ethical delivery of high-quality research. When participants make a fair, informed, and voluntary decision to enroll in a study, they agree to fulfill their roles. However, supporting study participants to fulfill study requirements is an important ethical obligation for researchers, yet evidenced as challenging to achieve. This paper reports on participants' motivations to volunteer and remain part of a dietary study conducted in Kasungu District, Malawi.

METHODS

We conducted twenty in-depth interviews (with chiefs, religious leaders, trial participants, and health surveillance assistants), five systematic ethnographic observations, and fourteen focus group discussions with trial participants and their partners. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used a grounded theory methodology to analyse data that included coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation.

FINDINGS

The findings reveal that many participants had concerns during the trial. Thematically, experiences included anxieties, mistrust of researchers, rumours, fears of exploitation, and misconceptions. Anonymous concerns collected from the participants were reported to the trial team which enabled the researchers to appropriately support participants. Despite initial concerns, participants described being supported and expressed motivation to take up their role.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight a diverse map of multiple notions of what is ethically relevant and what can impact participation and retention within a study. The study has revealed how embedding a responsive approach to address participants' concerns and ethical issues can support trust relationships. We argue for the need to employ embedded ethics strategies that enhance informed consent, focus on participants' needs and positive experiences, and support researchers to fulfill their roles. This work highlights the need for research ethics committees to focus on the risks of undue influence and prevent exploitation especially in settings with a high asymmetry in resources and power between researcher and participant groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy (Malawi) trial was registered on 5th March 2019 (ISCRTN85899451).

Using self-determination theory to understand and improve recruitment for the Coaching for Healthy Ageing (CHAnGE) trial

BACKGROUND

Intervention trials promoting physical activity among older people frequently report low and unrepresentative recruitment. Better understanding of reasons for participation can help improve recruitment. This study explored why participants enrolled in the Coaching for Healthy Ageing (CHAnGE) trial, including how their decision was influenced by recruitment strategies. CHAnGE was a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a healthy ageing program targeting inactivity and falls. Seventy-two groups of people aged 60+ were recruited from community organisations via informal presentations by the health coaches.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of interview data from our wider qualitative evaluation in which 32 purposively sampled trial participants took part in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of CHAnGE. Data relating to recruitment and participation were analysed inductively to identify themes, then a coding framework comprising the core constructs from self-determination theory-autonomy, competence and relatedness-was used to explore if and how this theory fit with and helped to explain our data.

RESULTS

Recruitment presentations promoted the CHAnGE intervention well in terms of addressing value expectations of structured support, different forms of accountability, credibility, achievability and, for some, a potential to enhance social relationships. Participation was motivated by the desire for improved health and decelerated ageing, altruism and curiosity. These factors related strongly to self-determination concepts of autonomy, competence and relatedness, but the intervention's demonstrated potential to support self-determination needs could be conveyed more effectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that recruitment could have greater reach using: 1. Strengths-based messaging focusing on holistic gains, 2. Participant stories that highlight positive experiences, and 3. Peer support and information sharing to leverage altruism and curiosity. These theory-informed improvements will be used to increase participation in future trials, including people in hard-to-recruit groups. They may also inform other physical activity trials and community programs.

Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study

BACKGROUND

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section).

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants').

METHODS

We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13).

RESULTS

Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches.

CONCLUSION

Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved.

FUTURE WORK

The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment.

LIMITATIONS

Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730.

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. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patient, Caregiver, and Decliner Perspectives on Whether to Enroll in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Research

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

Patient perceptions of the challenges of recruitment to a renal randomised trial registry: a pilot questionnaire-based study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of new therapies. However, issues of external validity often affect result application to real-world settings. Using registries to conduct RCTs is a reasonably new practice, but is appealing because it combines the benefits of both observational studies and RCTs. There is limited literature on patient motivators, barriers, and consent to registries for conducting RCTs. The purpose of our study was to establish the factors that motivate and/or inhibit patients from joining a registry for RCTs and to determine what information matters to patients when making an enrolment decision to participate in such a registry.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study at a dialysis centre in Southwest Ireland representing a catchment patient population of approximately 430,000. Quantitative data were coded and analysed in SPSS (v16). Descriptive statistics were produced, and open-ended questions were analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

Eighty-seven patients completed the questionnaire. Reasons for participation in a registry included personal and altruistic benefits. Barriers to participation were time and travel requirements associated with registry participation, data safety concerns, risks, side effects, and concerns that registry participation would impact current treatment. Although 29.8% of patients expressed concern regarding their data being stored in a registry, 79.3% were still willing to consent to have their data uploaded and stored in a registry for conducting RCTs. It was important to patients to have their GP (general practitioner) involved in the decision to participate, despite little day-to-day contact with their GP for renal dialysis management.

Conclusion

Challenges to recruitment to registries for RCTs exist, but addressing the identified concerns of potential participants may aid patients in making a more informed enrolment decision and may improve recruitment to registries, and by extension, to RCTs conducted using the registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05526-9.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop

BACKGROUND

Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.

METHODS

We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups.

RESULTS

Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I² = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.

LIMITATION

The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about.

CONCLUSION

We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias.

FUTURE WORK

The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthritis Surgery: The Patient Experience

BACKGROUND

Patients with symptomatic recalcitrant thumb carpometacarpal arthritis often undergo surgery. Although most surgical patients do well, the authors anticipated that a substantial portion of their thumb carpometacarpal surgery patients would have unsatisfactory experiences and express unmet expectations, dissatisfaction, and regret, regardless of surgical procedure performed. The authors hypothesized those experiences would correlate with patient-reported outcomes scores.

METHODS

The authors identified patients who had undergone trapeziectomy alone or with ligament reconstruction 1 to 4 years previously for primary thumb carpometacarpal arthritis. One hundred twelve patients completed Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and visual analogue scale pain, expectations, satisfaction, and regret questionnaires.

RESULTS

More than 40 percent of patients expected to "return to normal" after surgery for pain, strength, and/or function. Including all patients, 7, 19, and 11 percent had unmet expectations for improvement in pain, strength, and function, respectively. Twelve percent expressed dissatisfaction with their outcome. Although just 4 percent regretted undergoing surgery, 13 percent would likely not recommend the procedure to someone they care about. There were no statistically significant differences for any patient-reported outcomes between trapeziectomy-alone (n = 20) and trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction (n = 92). Visual analogue scale and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire scores were both moderately correlated with expectations being met for pain, strength, and function and for satisfaction with surgical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' thumb carpometacarpal surgical experiences vary considerably. Many express dissatisfaction or a lack of expectations met with the two most common procedures. A thorough understanding and review of expectations preoperatively may be uniquely pertinent for these patients. Further research should determine predictors and potentially modifiable factors for unsatisfactory outcomes.

Recall of clinical trial participation and attrition rates in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE

To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS).

MATERIALS/METHODS

In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall.

RESULTS

Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.

Lifestage differences in young UK women's reasons for research participation

Lifecourse epidemiology suggests that preconception is a valuable opportunity for health promotion with young women. Yet young women are less likely than older women to be research participants, limiting evidence about their needs and risks. Marketing data indicate that young adults are not engaged with one advertising strategy because they transition through three life stages: (i) limited independence and focus on own interests, (ii) increased independence and time with peers and (iii) establishing a home and family. The aim of this study was to explore whether these marketing lifestage categories could inform the tailoring of strategies to recruit young women. Three focus groups per lifestage category were conducted (49 women aged 16-34 years). Lifestage category (i) was represented by further education students, category (ii) by women in workplaces and (iii) by mothers. Questions explored participants' lifestyles, identity, reasons for participation in the current study and beliefs about researchers. Three major themes were identified through framework analysis: profiling how young women spend their time; facilitators of participating in research and barriers to participating. Students and women in work valued monetary remuneration whereas mothers preferred social opportunities. Participants' perceived identity influenced whether they felt useful to research. All groups expressed anxiety about participation. Altruism was limited to helping people known to participants. Therefore, the marketing categories did not map exactly to differences in young women's motivations to participate but have highlighted how one recruitment strategy may not engage all. Mass media communication could, instead, increase familiarity and reduce anxiety about participation.

Motivation to participate and experiences of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in emergency obstetric care in Uganda

Background

Informed consent, whose goal is to assure that participants enter research voluntarily after disclosure of potential risks and benefits, may be impossible or impractical in emergency research. In low resource settings, there is limited information on the experiences of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in the emergency care context. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of the informed consent process and factors that motivated participation in two obstetrics and newborn care randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Methods

This was a qualitative study conducted among former participants of RCTs in the emergency obstetric care context, conducted at Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda. It employed 30 in-depth interviews conducted from June 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019. Issues explored included attitudes about research, the purpose of the research in which they participated, motivations to take part in the study, factors that influenced enrolment decisions, and experiences of the informed consent process.

Results

Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of illness. The decisions to participate were influenced by hope for material or therapeutic benefit, trust in the healthcare system and influence of friends and family members. Many were satisfied with the informed consent process, though they did not understand some aspects of the research.

Conclusion

Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Hope for benefit, altruism, desire to further scientific knowledge and trust in the investigators featured prominently in the motivation to participate. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors were motivators for RCT participation.

Cross-sectional study on patients' understanding and views of the informed consent procedure of a secondary stroke prevention trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Improving understanding of study contents and procedures might enhance recruitment into studies and retention during follow-up. However, data in stroke patients on understanding of the informed consent (IC) procedure are sparse.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among ischemic stroke patients taking part in the IC procedure of an ongoing cluster-randomized secondary prevention trial. All aspects of the IC procedure were assessed in an interview using a standardized 20-item questionnaire. Responses were collected within 72 h after the IC procedure and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Participants were also asked their main reasons for participation.

RESULTS

A total of 146 stroke patients (65 ± 12 years old, 38% female) were enrolled. On average, patients recalled 66.4% (95% confidence interval = 65.2%-67.5%) of the content of the IC procedure. Most patients understood that participation was voluntary (99.3%) and that they had the right to withdraw consent (97.1%); 79.1% of the patients recalled the study duration and 56.1% the goal. Only 40.3% could clearly state a benefit of participation, and 28.8% knew their group allocation. Younger age, higher graduation, and allocation to the intervention group were associated with better understanding. Of all patients, 53% exclusively stated a personal and 22% an altruistic reason for participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas understanding of patient rights was high, many patients were unable to recall other important aspects of study content and procedures. Increased attention to older and less educated patients may help to enhance understanding in this patient population. Actual recruitment and retention benefit of an improved IC procedure remains to be tested in a randomized trial.

A Qualitative Analysis of Motivators to Participation in Suicide-Focused Research from a Community-Based Australian Sample

Suicide prevention strategies internationally appear to be falling short of making a meaningful impact on global suicide deaths. Increasing the rates of general community participation in suicide research may improve knowledge generalisability as it relates to suicidal behaviour and leads to new suicide prevention approaches. This study aims to explore the motivations of a community-based sample to participate in suicide research. A subsample of the Australian general population took part in an online survey which is part of a multilevel suicide prevention trial. The survey concluded with an optional open-text question asking about peoples’ motivations for participating in the study; 532 participants left a response to this question. These responses were qualitatively analysed using Thematic Network Analysis. Motivations to participate in suicide research were represented by four global themes: altruism, solve systemic problems, lived experience, and personal benefit. Of these themes, three were focused on the benefit of others, while only the final theme articulated motivation to participate that was self-focused. The impact of suicide is felt throughout the wider community. This new understanding of the motivations of community-based samples to participate in suicide research should be used to increase participation rates and reach people who would not normally contribute their voice to suicide research.

Causal models accounted for research participation effects when estimating effects in a behavioral intervention trial

OBJECTIVE

Participants in intervention studies are asked to take part in activities linked to the conduct of research, including signing consent forms and being assessed. If participants are affected by such activities through mechanisms by which the intervention is intended to work, then there is confounding. We examine how to account for research participation effects analytically.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from a trial of a brief alcohol intervention among Swedish university students is used to show how a proposed causal model can account for assessment effects.

RESULTS

The proposed model can account for research participation effects as long as researchers are willing to use existing data to make assumptions about causal influences, for instance on the magnitude of assessment effects. The model can incorporate several research processes which may introduce bias.

CONCLUSIONS

As our knowledge grows about research participation effects, we may move away from asking if participants are affected by study design, toward rather asking by how much they are affected, by which activities and in which circumstances. The analytic perspective adopted here avoids assuming there are no research participation effects.

Teasing out Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: An Ethical Critique of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Medicine

The rapid adoption and implementation of artificial intelligence in medicine creates an ontologically distinct situation from prior care models. There are both potential advantages and disadvantages with such technology in advancing the interests of patients, with resultant ontological and epistemic concerns for physicians and patients relating to the instatiation of AI as a dependent, semi- or fully-autonomous agent in the encounter. The concept of libertarian paternalism potentially exercised by AI (and those who control it) has created challenges to conventional assessments of patient and physician autonomy. The unclear legal relationship between AI and its users cannot be settled presently, an progress in AI and its implementation in patient care will necessitate an iterative discourse to preserve humanitarian concerns in future models of care. This paper proposes that physicians should neither uncritically accept nor unreasonably resist developments in AI but must actively engage and contribute to the discourse, since AI will affect their roles and the nature of their work. One's moral imaginative capacity must be engaged in the questions of beneficence, autonomy, and justice of AI and whether its integration in healthcare has the potential to augment or interfere with the ends of medical practice.

Muscle quantity and function measurements are acceptable to older adults during and post- hospitalisation: results of a questionnaire-based study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the acceptability of handgrip strength, gait speed, quadriceps ultrasound, and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) to older adults conducted during and following hospitalisation.

METHODS

Questionnaire-based study conducted upon completion of prospective cohort study, with follow-up in either Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB), UK, or participant's own home following recent admission to QEHB. Outcome measures were acceptability as defined by total multi-domain score for each test (maximum score 35), and by frailty status.

RESULTS

Forty adults aged 70 years and older admitted for emergency abdominal surgery, elective colorectal surgery, or acute bacterial infections (general medicine) participated. Handgrip strength (median 33, IQR 30-35; p = 0.001), gait speed (median 32, IQR 30-35; p = 0.002), ultrasound quadriceps (median 33, IQR 31-35; p = 0.001), and BIA (median 33.5, IQR 31-35; p = 0.001) were considered highly acceptable. Participants responded positively that they enjoyed participating in these tests, and considered these tests of importance. There was no difference in scores between tests (p = 0.166). Individual total test scores did not differ between patients with and without frailty. Qualitative data are also presented on drivers for research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Handgrip strength, gait speed, ultrasound quadriceps, and BIA are acceptable tests to older adults during and following hospitalisation. Our results may serve as standards when evaluating acceptability of other tests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered February 2019: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03858192.

Swedish large-scale schizophrenia study: Why do patients and healthy controls participate?

Insights into determination of study participation are useful for researchers, clinicians and for ethical considerations. Few large-scale genomic studies have involved motives for enrollment, in schizophrenia patients and unaffected controls. In a case-control study with participants recruited nation-wide in Sweden between 2005 and 2010, semi-structured interviews on motives and attitudes towards future studies were explored in 2767 schizophrenia cases and 4466 controls. In qualitative and quantitative analyses, we identified altruism as a major determinant in 84% of the cases and in 97% of the controls. Among pre-defined subcategories of altruism, cases with schizophrenia were more often referring to science for example, 'I want to help science move forward' or 'I want better medications for future generations' in relation to unaffected controls that were more often referring to common humanity such as 'It is my duty and responsibility to help'. In schizophrenia, motives related to personal benefit and social influence were reported by 9% and 5%. We conclude that individuals with schizophrenia frequently report altruistic motives for study participation, almost to the same extent as unaffected controls. In contrast to unfortunate stereotypes, people with schizophrenia wish others to benefit from their experiences with severe mental illness and should not be refrained from participating in genomic research.