Protection by exclusion? The (lack of) inclusion of adults who lack capacity to consent to research in clinical trials in the UK

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion.

RESULTS

We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

Navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map: lessons from setting up the BATH-OUT-2 randomised controlled trial in adult social care and housing services in English local authorities

Populations around the world are rapidly ageing and more people are living with multiple long-term conditions. There is an urgent need for evidence about high quality, cost-effective, and integrated systems of health and social care. Health research funders are now also prioritising research in adult social care and wider local authority settings, e.g. housing services.Developing the evidence base for adult social care should include implementing randomised controlled trials, where appropriate. Within the UK, the clinical trial is the established road map for evaluating interventions in the National Health Service (NHS). However, adult social care and local authorities are relatively uncharted territory for trials. BATH-OUT-2 is one of the first clinical trials currently underway within adult social care and housing adaptations services in six English local authorities. It provides an opportunity to explore how the clinical trial road map fares in these settings.Whilst setting up BATH-OUT-2, we encountered challenges with securing funding for the trial, lack of non-NHS intervention costs, using research and support costs as intended, gaining approvals, identifying additional trial sites, and including people who lack the mental capacity to provide informed consent. Overall, our experience has been like navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map. In the UK, the clinical trial road map was developed for medical settings. Its key features are integrated within the NHS landscape but have been largely absent, unfamiliar, inaccessible, or irrelevant in social care and wider local authority terrain. Navigating the set-up of a clinical trial outside the NHS has been a complicated and disorientating journey.BATH-OUT-2 highlights how local authorities generally and adult social care specifically are a relatively new and certainly different type of setting for trials. Whilst this poses a challenge for conducting trials, it also presents an opportunity to question longstanding assumptions within trials practices, reimagine the conventional clinical trial road map, and take it in new directions. As the UK research landscape moves forward and becomes better primed for randomised evaluations in local authorities, we propose several suggestions for building on recent progress and advancing trials within adult social care and across health and care systems.

How do quantitative studies involving people with dementia report experiences of standardised data collection? A narrative synthesis of NIHR published studies

BACKGROUND

People with dementia are routinely included as research participants in trials and other quantitative studies in which they are invited to respond to standardised measures. This paper reviews the reporting of standardised data collection from people with dementia in reports published in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Journals Library. The aim was to understand how the administration of standardised, self-report measures with people with dementia is reported in NIHR monographs and what could be learnt from this about the feasibility and acceptability of data collection approaches for future studies.

METHODS

This was a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Broad search terms (Dementia OR Alzheimer*) were used to search the NIHR Journals Library website in December 2021. All studies that used (or intended to use) standardised measures to collect research data directly from people with dementia were eligible for inclusion. Information was extracted (where reported) on the process of data collection, dementia severity, levels of missing data and the experiences and reflections of those involved.

RESULTS

Searches returned 42 records, from which 17 reports were assessed as eligible for inclusion, containing 22 studies. Response rates from participants with dementia in these studies varied considerably and appeared to be related to dementia severity and place of residence. Little information was reported on the process of data collection or the reasons for missing data, and most studies did not report the experiences of participants or those administering the measures. However, there was an indication from two studies that standardised data collection could provoke emotional distress in some participants with dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this review we identified both variation in levels of missing data and gaps in reporting which make it difficult to ascertain the reasons for this variation. We also identified potential risks to the well-being of participants with dementia which may be associated with the content of standardised measures and the context of data collection. Open reporting of and reflection upon data collection processes and the experiences of people involved is essential to ensure both the success of future data collection and the wellbeing of study participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with Research on Research https://ror-hub.org/study/2905/ .

The inclusion of adults with intellectual disabilities in health research - challenges, barriers and opportunities: a mixed-method study among stakeholders in England

BACKGROUND

The study aims to understand system barriers to research participation for people with intellectual disabilities.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach examined the inclusivity of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in a random sample of National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) studies conducted in 2019-2020. An online questionnaire (stage 1) was sent to the selected studies lead investigators. An expert by experience panel of 25 people with intellectual disabilities (IDs, stage 2), discussed the stage 1 feedback. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 180 studies reviewed, 131 studies (78%) excluded people with IDs. Of these, 45 (34.3%) study researchers provided feedback. Seven (20%) of the 34 studies which included people with IDs gave feedback. Of all respondents over half felt their study had some relevance to people with IDs. A minority (7.6%) stated their study had no relevance. For a quarter of respondents (23.5%), resource issues were a challenge. Qualitative analysis of both stages produced four overarching themes of Research design and delivery, Informed consent, Resource allocation, and Knowledge and skills.

CONCLUSION

Health research continues to exclude people with IDs. Researchers and experts by experience identified non-accessible research design, lack of confidence with capacity and consent processes, limited resources such as time and a need for training as barriers. Ethics committees appear reluctant to include people with cognitive deficits to 'protect' them. People with IDs want to be included in research, not only as participants but also through coproduction.

Improving the inclusion of an under-served group in trials: development and implementation of the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework

BACKGROUND

For the potential benefits of trials to reach all that they should, trials must be designed to ensure that those taking part reflect the population who will receive the intervention. However, adults with impaired capacity to consent are frequently excluded from trials - partly because researchers are unfamiliar with the legal and ethical frameworks and lack the necessary methodological expertise. Researchers identified a need for guidance on designing more inclusive trials. Building on the NIHR INCLUDE initiative, we developed the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework to help researchers design inclusive trials.

METHODS

The framework was developed over five phases: (1) establishing the scope and content of the framework and adapting the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework for this population; (2) scoping the relevance of the framework to different populations and piloting in a range of trials; (3) consulting people living with impairing conditions and carers to explore their views about the framework and identify missing content areas; (4) refining the framework; and (5) the development of an implementation toolkit of resources to support researchers using the framework.

RESULTS

The framework has two parts: a set of four key questions to help researchers identify who should be included in their trial, and a series of worksheets covering intervention design, recruitment and consent processes, data collection and analysis, and public involvement and dissemination. It is supported by a summary of the ethical and legal frameworks and a website of resources on capacity and consent. Implementation resources include infographics and animations, a library of completed frameworks, and facilitated workshops for researchers. The framework and toolkit were launched at a webinar (November 2022), with polling demonstrating an increase in attendees' awareness about research involving adults lacking capacity. A post-webinar survey found that stakeholders viewed the framework and toolkit as valuable tools to facilitate greater inclusion of this under-served population in trials. The framework is available online: https://www.capacityconsentresearch.com/include-impaired-capacity-to-consent-framework.html .

CONCLUSIONS

The INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework and implementation toolkit can support researchers to design more inclusive trials and other types of research studies. Further engagement, including with funders who are key to ensuring uptake, and evaluation is needed.

A scoping review of the use of visual tools and adapted easy-read approaches in Quality-of-Life instruments for adults

PURPOSE

Self-Reporting using traditional text-based Quality-of-Life (QoL) instruments can be difficult for people living with sensory impairments, communication challenges or changes to their cognitive capacity. Adapted communication techniques, such as Easy-Read techniques, or use of pictures could remove barriers to participation for a wide range of people. This review aimed to identify published studies reporting adapted communication approaches for measuring QoL, the methodology used in their development and validation among adult populations.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews checklist was undertaken.

RESULTS

The initial search strategy identified 13,275 articles for screening, with 264 articles identified for full text review. Of these 243 articles were excluded resulting in 21 studies for inclusion. The majority focused on the development of an instrument (12 studies) or a combination of development with some aspect of validation or psychometric testing (7 studies). Nineteen different instruments were identified by the review, thirteen were developed from previously developed generic or condition-specific quality of life instruments, predominantly aphasia (7 studies) and disability (4 studies). Most modified instruments included adaptations to both the original questions, as well as the response categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies identified in this scoping review demonstrate that several methods have been successfully applied e.g. with people living with aphasia post-stroke and people living with a disability, which potentially could be adapted for application with more diverse populations. A cohesive and interdisciplinary approach to the development and validation of communication accessible versions of QOL instruments, is needed to support widespread application, thereby reducing reliance on proxy assessors and promoting self-assessment of QOL across multiple consumer groups and sectors.

Impact of an INtervention to increase MOBility in older hospitalized medical patients (INTOMOB): Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low mobility during an acute hospitalization is frequent and associated with adverse effects, including persistent functional decline, institutionalization and death. However, we lack effective interventions to improve mobility that are scalable in everyday practice. The INTOMOB trial - INtervention to increase MOBility in older hospitalized medical patients - will test the effect of a multilevel intervention to improve mobility of older hospitalized patients on functional mobility.

METHODS

The INTOMOB multicenter superiority parallel cluster randomized controlled trial will enroll in total 274 patients in Swiss hospitals. Community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 60 years, admitted to a general internal medicine ward with an anticipated length of hospital stay of ≥ 3 days, will be eligible for participation. Unit of randomization will be the wards. A multilevel mobility intervention will be compared to standard of care and target the patients (information and exercise booklets, mobility diary, iPad with exercise videos), healthcare professionals (e-learning, oral presentation, mobility checklist), and environment (posters and pictures on the wards). The primary outcome will be life-space level, measured by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Study of Aging Life-Space Assessment (LSA), at 30 days after enrollment. The LSA is a measure of functional mobility, i.e., how far participants move from bedroom to outside town. Secondary outcomes include, among others, LSA at 180 days, mobility and falls during hospitalization, muscle strength at discharge, and falls, emergency room visits, readmissions, and death within 180 days.

DISCUSSION

This study has the potential to improve outcomes of older hospitalized patients through an intervention that should be scalable in clinical practice because it fosters patient empowerment and does not require additional resources. The tools provided to the patients can help them implement better mobility practices after discharge, which can contribute to better functional outcomes. The choice of a functional patient-reported outcome measure as primary outcome (rather than a "simple" objective mobility measure) reinforces the patient-centeredness of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05639231, released on December 19 2022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal (SNCTP000005259, released on November 28 2022).

Physical rehabilitation for people with advanced dementia who fracture their hip - expert consensus process

PURPOSE

Hip fracture is common in older people - with prevalence even higher for people with dementia. Research often excludes people with dementia - especially those in the more advanced stages. Therefore, the most appropriate interventions remain unknown. The main aim of this study was to gain consensus about the core considerations needed to deliver a physical intervention for people with advanced dementia who fracture their hip. Materials and Methods: An expert consensus process was undertaken, using Nominal Group Technique, to explore the key considerations when delivering rehabilitation. Data collection was undertaken in January 2023 and involved an online group discussion followed by voting and off-line rating. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative analysis of consensus scoring was undertaken. An international group of seven highly specialised physiotherapists took part.

RESULTS

59 statements were agreed following the process. Content analysis was used to categorise these statements according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Although consensus levels were high, there was disagreement in several areas.

CONCLUSION

The statements provide an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population. People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe expert consensus provides an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population.Physiotherapy - or other interventions - cannot be used in isolation.People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.While our focus was on hip fracture, we suggest these statements can be used for people with advanced dementia with a variety of other conditions.

Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning

BACKGROUND

Anticipatory planning in the UK focuses on supporting people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to express their wishes about future care through processes such as advance care planning. Other countries have extended anticipatory planning to include processes for people to prospectively express their preferences about research participation. Advance research planning (ARP) is thought to extend autonomy and ensure that 'proxy' decisions about research are based on their wishes and preferences.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with two stakeholder groups (members of the public including people living with capacity-affecting conditions and family members; researchers and other professionals) who were recruited via research registries and other routes. Online questionnaires were used to capture the perspectives of the two groups. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 327 participants (members of the public n = 277, professionals n = 50) completed the survey (November 2022 - March 2023). ARP was supported by 97% of public contributors and 94% of professionals. Participants thought that ARP should include the person's general wishes about research, specific types of studies, and who should make decisions on their behalf. They identified a number of challenges, including how ARP could take account of changes in individuals' preferences or circumstances whilst protecting their rights and interests. Implementation barriers included the potential time, complexity, and cost involved. These could be addressed by embedding ARP in existing anticipatory planning pathways and aligning it with other research enrolment activities. Relationships and trust played a key role, including underpinning who should support the delivery of ARP, how they are trained, and when it is undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

There were high levels of support for introducing ARP in the UK. Further research should explore practical barriers and stakeholder concerns and identify any unintended consequences. Future activities should include developing ARP interventions alongside training and other resources, and also focus on public awareness campaigns, and engaging policymakers and other stakeholders.

Spaces of Exclusion and Neglect: The Impact of COVID-19 on People With Disabilities in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, and Uganda

This research investigates how COVID-19 has affected experiences of people with disabilities in low- and middle-income contexts. A qualitative approach was used to collect data as the pandemic progressed from 75 participants in Nigeria, Bangladesh, Nepal, Kenya, and Uganda. The research aimed to be inclusive of people with disabilities by asking the participants directly about their perspectives with a narrative interview method being employed to gain each person's unique insights. A participatory thematic analysis of the data, followed by a spatial analysis process, produced rich and highly individualized accounts of the spatiocultural experiences relating to how people with disabilities had occupied both private and public space during the pandemic. Differing factors, such as the dominant culture, gender, a person's impairments, and the social environment, are shown to shape people's experiences. Across cultures, COVID-19 is shown to have presented new challenges for people with disabilities while preexisting disadvantages have been exacerbated.

Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework

BACKGROUND

Older people are often explicitly or implicitly excluded from research, in particular clinical trials. This means that study findings may not be applicable to them, or that older people may not be offered treatments due to an absence of evidence.

AIMS

The aim of this work was to develop recommendations to guide all research relevant to older people.

METHODS

A diverse stakeholder group identified barriers and solutions to including older people in research. In parallel, a rapid literature review of published papers was undertaken to identify existing papers on the inclusion of older people in research. The findings were synthesised and mapped onto a socio-ecological model. From the synthesis we identified themes that were developed into initial recommendations that were iteratively refined with the stakeholder group.

RESULTS

A range of individual, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy factors impact on the inclusion of older people in research. A total of 14 recommendations were developed such as removing upper age limits and comorbidity exclusions, involving older people, advocates and health and social care professionals with expertise in ageing in designing the research, and considering flexible or alternative approaches to data collection to maximise opportunities for participation. We also developed four questions that may guide those developing, reviewing and funding research that is inclusive of older people.

CONCLUSION

Our recommendations provide up to date, practical advice on ways to improve the inclusion of older people in health and care research.

The ethnographer, the research participants, and the meaningful others: Gray zones of relationality and the ethics of dementia care research

The debate on the ethics of dementia research has tended to treat individuals with dementia, primary caregivers other family members and local communities as preestablished and distinct categories of research participants. What has been overlooked are the meaningful social relationships that run through these categories and how these relationships affect the ethnographer's positionality during and after fieldwork. In this paper, drawing on two cases of ethnographic research on family dementia care in North Italy, we propose two heuristic devices, "meaningful others" and "gray zones", which highlight the ambiguous positionality of ethnographers in care relations and local moral worlds. We further show the benefit of incorporating these devices in discussions on the ethics of dementia care research: by rendering problematic any fixed and polarized positionality of the ethnographer, these two devices allow for a voice to be given to the individuals who represent the main research focus while addressing the interdependence and ethically nuanced dimension of caring relations.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Proactive and Integrated Management and Empowerment in Parkinson's Disease protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PRIME-UK) to evaluate a new model of care

BACKGROUND

People living with Parkinson's disease experience progressive motor and non-motor symptoms, which negatively impact on health-related quality of life and can lead to an increased risk of hospitalisation. It is increasingly recognised that the current care models are not suitable for the needs of people with parkinsonism whose care needs evolve and change as the disease progresses. This trial aims to evaluate whether a complex and innovative model of integrated care will increase an individual's ability to achieve their personal goals, have a positive impact on health and symptom burden and be more cost-effective when compared with usual care.

METHODS

This is a single-centre, randomised controlled trial where people with parkinsonism and their informal caregivers are randomised into one of two groups: either PRIME Parkinson multi-component model of care or usual care. Adults ≥18 years with a diagnosis of parkinsonism, able to provide informed consent or the availability of a close friend or relative to act as a personal consultee if capacity to do so is absent and living in the trial geographical area are eligible. Up to three caregivers per patient can also take part, must be ≥18 years, provide informal, unpaid care and able to give informed consent. The primary outcome measure is goal attainment, as measured using the Bangor Goal Setting Interview. The duration of enrolment is 24 months. The total recruitment target is n=214, and the main analyses will be intention to treat.

DISCUSSION

This trial tests whether a novel model of care improves health and disease-related metrics including goal attainment and decreases hospitalisations whilst being more cost-effective than the current usual care. Subject to successful implementation of this intervention within one centre, the PRIME Parkinson model of care could then be evaluated within a cluster-randomised trial at multiple centres.

Effectiveness of treatments for people living with severe dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the disease, evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments for people with severe dementia remains limited.

AIMS

To systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online clinical trial registers up to January 2022, for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) in people living with severe dementia. Quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors.

RESULTS

A total of 30 trials met our inclusion criteria of which 14 evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and 16 evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention. Pharmacological treatments: Meta-analyses indicated that pharmacological treatments (donepezil: 10 mg, 5 mg; galantamine: 24 mg; memantine: 10 mg) are associated with better outcomes compared to placebo for: severity of symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.48; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.26; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and clinical impression of change (Relative Risk (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacological treatments were also more likely to reduce mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Non-pharmacological treatments: Five trials were included in the meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions (multi-sensory stimulation, needs assessment, and activities-based interventions); results showed that non-pharmacological interventions may reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia compared to usual care (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06; low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological treatments may decrease disease severity and improve function for people with severe dementia. Non-pharmacological treatments are probably effective in reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms but the quality of evidence remains low. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence for other outcomes and for developing service-user informed interventions for this under-served group.

Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions.

METHODS

This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation.

DISCUSSION

This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry.

Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale)

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of adults lacking the capacity to consent to trials requires the involvement of an alternative 'proxy' decision-maker, usually a family member. This can be challenging for family members, with some experiencing emotional and decisional burdens. Interventions to support proxy consent decisions in non-emergency settings are being developed. However, the ability to evaluate interventions is limited due to a lack of measures that capture outcomes of known importance, as identified through a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

Using established measure development principles, a four-stage process was used to develop and refine items for a new measure of proxy decision quality: (1) findings from a recent scoping review and consensus study were reviewed to identify items for inclusion in the scale and any existing outcome measures, (2) assessment of content coverage by existing measures and identification of insufficiency, (3) construction of a novel scale, and (4) cognitive testing to explore comprehension of the scale and test its content adequacy through interviews with family members of people with impaired capacity.

RESULTS

A range of outcome measures associated with healthcare decision-making and informed consent decisions, such as the Decisional Conflict Scale, were identified in the scoping review. These measures were mapped against the key constructs identified in the COS to assess content coverage. Insufficient coverage of areas such as proxy-specific satisfaction and knowledge sufficiency by existing instruments indicated that a novel measure was needed. An initial version of a combined measure (the CONCORD scale) was drafted and tested during cognitive interviews with eleven family members. The interviews established comprehension, acceptability, feasibility, and content adequacy of the scale. Participants suggested re-phrasing and re-ordering some questions, leading to the creation of a revised version.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONCORD scale provides a brief measure to evaluate the quality of decisions made on behalf of an adult who lacks the capacity to consent in non-emergency settings, enabling the evaluation of interventions to improve proxy decision quality. Initial evaluation indicates it has content adequacy and is feasible to use. Further statistical validation work is being undertaken.

Eligibility criteria in NIH-funded clinical trials: Can adults with intellectual disability get in?

BACKGROUND

Although scientific breakthroughs can promote health equity, there is concern that adults with intellectual disability, a health disparities population, may be excluded from clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which adults with intellectual disability are subject to exclusion from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials.

METHODS

We studied recent NIH-funded Phase 2/3, 3, and 4 clinical trials of United States-based working-age adults (>18 < 55 years of age) listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. We coded eligibility criteria for inclusion, direct exclusion, and indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

RESULTS

We rarely identified studies that directly include adults with intellectual disability. Most studies (74.6%) had eligibility criteria that directly and/or indirectly exclude adults with intellectual disability. Approximately one-third of studies had direct exclusion criteria based on cognitive impairment or diagnosis of intellectual disability. Nearly 65% of studies indirectly excluded adults with intellectual disability based on factors likely associated with intellectual disability (e.g., functional capacity, inability to read/write, and/or research staff discretion).

CONCLUSIONS

We found less exclusion based on diagnosis of intellectual disability than anticipated. Nonetheless, about three-fourths of studies had eligibility criteria which would likely lead to the direct and/or indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability. Our findings suggest substantial cause for concern that adults with intellectual disability experience widespread exclusion from NIH-funded clinical trials-exclusion that may lack appropriate justification and assessment. Consequently, this group is denied equal access to the potential benefits of scientific discovery. We provide recommendations for approaches to include adults with intellectual disability.

Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs)

BACKGROUND

The number of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of participants in trials is rising, with a corresponding growth in randomised Studies Within Trials (SWATs) to evaluate their (cost-)effectiveness. Despite recognised challenges in conducting trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent, until now, no individual-level recruitment interventions have focused on this population. Following the development of a decision aid for family members making non-emergency trial participation decisions on behalf of people with impaired capacity, we have designed a SWAT to evaluate the decision aid in a number of host trials (CONSULT). Unlike in recruitment SWATs to date, the CONSULT intervention is aimed at a 'proxy' decision-maker (a family member) who is not a participant in the host trial and does not receive the trial intervention. This commentary explores the methodological and ethical considerations encountered when designing such SWATs, using the CONSULT SWAT as a case example. Potential solutions to address these issues are also presented.

DISCUSSION

We encountered practical issues around informed consent, data collection, and follow-up which involves linking the intervention receiver (the proxy) with recruitment and retention data from the host trial, as well as issues around randomisation level, resource use, and maintaining the integrity of the host trial. Unless addressed, methodological uncertainty about differential recruitment and heterogeneity between trial populations could potentially limit the scope for drawing robust inferences and harmonising data from different SWAT host trials. Proxy consent is itself ethically complex, and so when conducting a SWAT which aims to disrupt and enhance proxy consent decisions, there are additional ethical issues to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing a SWAT to evaluate a recruitment intervention for non-emergency trials with adults lacking capacity to consent has raised a number of methodological and ethical considerations. Explicating these challenges, and some potential ways to address them, creates a starting point for discussions about conducting these potentially more challenging SWATs. Increasing the evidence base for the conduct of trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent is intended to improve both the ability to conduct these trials and their quality, and so help build research capacity for this under-served population.

Comparing the quality of care for long-term ventilated individuals at home versus in shared living communities: a convergent parallel mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

People on home mechanical ventilation (HMV) belong to a heterogeneous population with complex care needs. In Germany, outpatient intensive care is provided in people's private home (PH) or in shared living communities (SLC). Increasing patient numbers have led to criticism of the quality of care in recent years. Since quality deficits from the perspective of those affected are largely unclear, the following research question emerged: How do interviews with ventilated individuals and family caregivers explain any differences or similarities in the quality of care between PH and SLC?

METHODS

This study used a mixed-methods convergent parallel design, where quantitative and qualitative components were separately collected and analysed. The quantitative component (structured interviews and online survey) included ventilation characteristics, health-related resource use, health-related quality of life (HRQL) measured with the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency Questionnaire (SRI; range 0-100; higher scores indicated higher HRQL) and the Burden Scale of the Family Caregivers short version (BSFC-s; range 0-30; higher scores indicated higher burden). The qualitative component (semi-structured interviews) focused on people's experience of person-centred care. Data were merged using a weaving method and the Picker framework of Person-Centred Care.

RESULTS

The quantitative component revealed that ventilated individuals living in PHs were on average 20 years younger than participants living in SLCs (n = 46; PH: 46.86 ±15.40 years vs. SLC: 65.07 ±11.78 years; p = .001). HRQL (n = 27; PH: 56.62 ±16.40 vs. SLC: 55.35 ±12.72; p > .999) and the burden of family caregivers (n = 16; PH: 13.20 ±10.18 vs. SLC: 12.64 ±8.55; p > .999) were not significantly different between living situation. The qualitative component revealed that person-centred care is possible in both care settings (ventilated individuals: n = 13; family caregivers: n = 18).

CONCLUSION

This study describes a care situation that is as heterogeneous as the population of people with HMV. HRQL and the burden of family caregivers are highly individual and, like person-centred care, independent of the living situation. Policy decisions that facilitate person-centred care need to recognise that quality of care is highly individual and starts with the free choice of the care setting.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting.

DESIGN

A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Patient Information and Informed Consent for Research in the Elderly: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Controlled Trial

The informed consent (IC) of subjects participating in experimental studies is the mainstay to comply with the ethical principle of autonomy to ensure that the participation is voluntary. This experience was performed within the context of a single-center randomized clinical trial in elective prosthetic surgery. Obtaining IC in clinical trials is not without difficulties, and especially in the case of vulnerable populations it can be very challenging. This work aimed to identify the difficulties during the IC process for a clinical trial in subjects older than 65 years old and quantify and describe the use of IC in front of a witness. Methods: This is a mixed methodology study with a qualitative part (focus group with 4 nurses involved in the inclusion of subjects) and a quantitative part describing the characteristics of patients who signed IC forms. Results: The main difficulties identified are related to comprehension, sensory impairments, education level, and time. IC in front of witnesses was used in 20 patients out of 508. Conclusions: The participation of subjects older than 65 years old in clinical trials requires an adaptation of the process. The use of IC in front of a witness should always be considered in studies including elderly subjects.

Factors influencing decisions about whether to participate in health research by people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds: a realist review

OBJECTIVE

To develop and refine a programme theory that explains factors that influence decisions to take part in health research by people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

DESIGN

Realist review following a sequence of five steps: (a) scoping search and identification of programme theory; (b) evidence searching; (c) critical appraisal and data extraction; (d) organisation of evidence and (e) refinement of programme theory.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Documents (including peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, websites, reports and conference papers) either full text, or a section of relevance to the overarching research question were included.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Psych Info, Google and Google Scholar were searched iteratively between May and August 2020. Search strategy was refined for each database providing a broad enough review for building of programme theory.

ANALYSIS

Data from eligible documents was extracted to build understanding of the factors that influence decision-making. Data were mapped to create a data matrix according to context (C), mechanism (M), outcome (O), configurations (C) (CMOCs) for the process of informed consent, to aid interpretation and produce final programme theory.

RESULTS

566 documents were screened and 71 included. Final programme theory was underpinned by CMOCs on processes influencing decisions to take part in research. Key findings indicate the type of infrastructure required, for example, resources, services and policies, to support inclusion in health research, with a greater need to increase the social presence of researchers within communities, improve cultural competency of individuals and organisations, reduce the complexity of participant information, and provide additional resources to support adaptive processes and shared decision making.

CONCLUSION

The review indicates the need for a more inclusive research infrastructure that facilitates diverse participation in health research through incorporating adaptive processes that support shared decision making within the informed consent process and in the conduct of research projects.

What Can We Learn From a Human-Rights Based Approach to Disability for Public and Patient Involvement in Research?

Public and Patient Involvement can align both the research process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. By fostering the design of inclusive, engaged, and sustainable practices, research and research integrity can be improved. Devolving power to involve patients and relevant publics in deliberative decision making can produce better research outcomes. Disabled people are often categorized as “Hard to Reach.” There is a varied and complex ecosystem of societal challenges of living with a disability that reinforce this. However, if researchers are to meet their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, disabled people should be included in public and patient involvement for all research in which they have a stake. In this article we argue that a better understanding of rights-based approaches and the social model of disability within the wider research community can help to remove barriers to research involvement for disabled persons. We focus on articles 3, 4, and 9 of the Convention and discuss how the principles of participation, accessibility, and equality of opportunity can be applied to research involvement, and how their adoption can facilitate truly meaningful PPI in disability research.

'Do I have the capacity to make capacity judgements?' Researcher reflections from a person-centred dementia support study

Background and purpose

Adults lacking capacity are under-represented in research; therefore, the evidence-base surrounding their support needs is inferior compared to other populations. Involving this group in research is fraught with challenges, including researcher uncertainties about how to carry out capacity judgements. Whilst ethical guidelines and principles provide overarching guidance, there is a lack of detailed guidance and evidence-based training, incorporating practical ‘on the ground’ strategies and advice on communication practices. Experiences and reflections on research procedures used to gauge and address capacity are under reported, resulting in a lack of shared knowledge within the field.

Design

To help address this, we engaged in researcher (co)meta-reflection on the informed capacity judgement procedure for initial consent, within our current, person-centred dementia intervention feasibility study. Our objective was to identify areas to improve our approach, but to also put forward suggestions for wider change within ethical research practice.

Results

Findings reveal challenges and facilitators relating to six areas: ‘Conducting time sensitive research whilst remaining person-centred and building relationships’; ‘Information sharing and supporting communication’; ‘Applying the process flexibly’; ‘The role of the carer and the consultee process’; ‘Judging assent and dissent’ and ‘Researcher related factors’. We questioned our ‘capacity to make capacity judgements’ in terms of both our skills and research time constraints.

Conclusions

Based on our experiences, we argue for greater open discussion between researchers, Patient and Public Involvement contributors and Research Ethics Committees at initial project planning stages. We recommend training and guidance focuses on building researcher skills in applying a standard process flexibly, emphasising naturalistic, conversational approaches to capacity judgement. A crucial consideration for funders is how this time-intensive and sensitive work should be factored into bid application templates and funding grants. Learnings from this article have potential to inform evidence-based guidance and training for researchers, consultees, funders, reviewers and ethics committees.

Pragmatic Trial of Personalized Music for Agitation and Antipsychotic Use in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of a personalized music intervention on agitated behaviors and medication use among long-stay nursing home residents with dementia.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial of a personalized music intervention. Staff in intervention facilities identified residents' early music preferences and offered music at early signs of agitation or when disruptive behaviors typically occur. Usual care in control facilities may include ambient or group music.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study was conducted between June 2019 and February 2020 at 54 nursing homes (27 intervention and 27 control) in 10 states owned by 4 corporations.

METHODS

Four-month outcomes were measured for each resident. The primary outcome was frequency of agitated behaviors using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. Secondary outcomes included frequency of agitated behaviors reported in the Minimum Data Set and the proportion of residents using antipsychotic, antidepressant, or antianxiety medications.

RESULTS

The study included 976 residents with dementia [483 treatment and 493 control; mean age = 80.3 years (SD 12.3), 69% female, 25% African American]. CMAI scores were not significantly different (treatment: 50.67, SE 1.94; control: 49.34, SE 1.68) [average marginal effect (AME) 1.33, SE 1.38, 95% CI -1.37 to 4.03]. Minimum Data Set-based behavior scores were also not significantly different (treatment: 0.35, SE 0.13; control: 0.46, SE 0.11) (AME -0.11, SE 0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.08). Fewer residents in intervention facilities used antipsychotics in the past week compared with controls (treatment: 26.2, SE 1.4; control: 29.6, SE 1.3) (AME -3.61, SE 1.85, 95% CI -7.22 to 0.00), but neither this nor other measures of psychotropic drug use were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Personalized music was not significantly effective in reducing agitated behaviors or psychotropic drug use among long-stay residents with dementia. Barriers to full implementation included engaging frontline nursing staff and identifying resident's preferred music.

Promoting inclusion in clinical trials-a rapid review of the literature and recommendations for action

Background

Without inclusion of diverse research participants, it is challenging to understand how study findings will translate into the real world. Despite this, a lack of inclusion of those from under-served groups in research is a prevailing problem due to multi-faceted barriers acting at multiple levels. Therefore, we rapidly reviewed international published literature, in relation to clinical trials, on barriers relating to inclusion, and evidence of approaches that are effective in overcoming these.

Methods

A rapid literature review was conducted searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles that discussed barriers to inclusion or strategies to improve inclusion in clinical trial research published between 2010 and 2021. Grey literature articles were excluded.

Results

Seventy-two eligible articles were included. The main barriers identified were language and communication, lack of trust, access to trials, eligibility criteria, attitudes and beliefs, lack of knowledge around clinical trials, and logistical and practical issues. In relation to evidence-based strategies and enablers, two key themes arose: [1] a multi-faceted approach is essential [2]; no single strategy was universally effective either within or between trials. The key evidence-based strategies identified were cultural competency training, community partnerships, personalised approach, multilingual materials and staff, communication-specific strategies, increasing understanding and trust, and tackling logistical barriers.

Conclusions

Many of the barriers relating to inclusion are the same as those that impact trial design and healthcare delivery generally. However, the presentation of these barriers among different under-served groups may be unique to each population’s particular circumstances, background, and needs. Based on the literature, we make 15 recommendations that, if implemented, may help improve inclusion within clinical trials and clinical research more generally. The three main recommendations include improving cultural competency and sensitivity of all clinical trial staff through training and ongoing personal development, the need to establish a diverse community advisory panel for ongoing input into the research process, and increasing recruitment of staff from under-served groups. Implementation of these recommendations may help improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials which would improve the external validity of associated findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05849-7.

Roadmap to 2030 for Drug Evaluation in Older Adults

Changes that accompany older age can alter the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and likelihood of adverse effects (AEs) of a drug. However, older adults, especially the oldest or those with multiple chronic health conditions, polypharmacy, or frailty, are often under-represented in clinical trials of new drugs. Deficits in the current conduct of clinical evaluation of drugs for older adults and potential steps to fill those knowledge gaps are presented in this communication. The most important step is to increase clinical trial enrollment of older adults who are representative of the target treatment population. Unnecessary eligibility criteria should be eliminated. Physical and financial barriers to participation should be removed. Incentives could be created for inclusion of older adults. Enrollment goals should be established based on intended treatment indications, prevalence of the condition, and feasibility. Relevant clinical pharmacology data need to be obtained early enough to guide dosing and reduce risk for participation of older adults. Relevant PK and PD data as well as patient-centered outcomes should be measured during trials. Trial data should be analyzed for differences in PK, PD, effectiveness, and safety arising from differences in age or from the presence of conditions common in older adults. Postmarket evaluations with real-world evidence and drug labeling updates throughout the product lifecycle reflecting new knowledge are also needed. A comprehensive plan is needed to ensure adequate evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs in older adults.

Measuring the effects of a personalized music intervention on agitated behaviors among nursing home residents with dementia: design features for cluster-randomized adaptive trial

Background

Agitated and aggressive behaviors (behaviors) are common in nursing home (NH) residents with dementia. Medications commonly used to manage behaviors have dangerous side effects. NHs are adopting non-pharmacological interventions to manage behaviors, despite a lack of effectiveness evidence and an understanding of optimal implementation strategies. We are conducting an adaptive trial to evaluate the effects of personalized music on behaviors. Adaptive trials may increase efficiency and reduce costs associated with traditional RCTs by learning and making modifications to the trial while it is ongoing.

Methods

We are conducting two consecutive parallel cluster-randomized trials with 54 NHs in each trial (27 treatment, 27 control). Participating NHs were recruited from 4 corporations which differ in size, ownership structure, geography, and residents’ racial composition. After randomization, there were no significant differences between the NHs randomized to each trial with respect to baseline behaviors, number of eligible residents, degree of cognitive impairment, or antipsychotic use. Agitated behavior frequency is assessed via staff interviews (primary outcome), required nursing staff conducted resident assessments (secondary outcome), and direct observations of residents (secondary outcome). Between the two parallel trials, the adaptive design will be used to test alternative implementation strategies, increasingly enroll residents who are likely to benefit from the intervention, and seamlessly conduct a stage III/IV trial.

Discussion

This adaptive trial allows investigators to estimate the impact of a popular non-pharmaceutical intervention (personalized music) on residents’ behaviors, under pragmatic, real-world conditions testing two implementation strategies. This design has the potential to reduce the research timeline by improving the likelihood of powered results, increasingly enrolling residents most likely to benefit from intervention, sequentially assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies in the same trial, and creating a statistical model to reduce the future need for onsite data collection. The design may also increase research equity by enrolling and tailoring the intervention to populations otherwise excluded from research. Our design will inform pragmatic testing of other interventions with limited efficacy evidence but widespread stakeholder adoption because of the real-world need for non-pharmaceutical approaches.

{2a} Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT03821844. Registered on January 30, 2019. This trial registration meets the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum standard.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05620-y.

Exploring the inclusion of under-served groups in trials methodology research: an example from ethnic minority populations' views on deferred consent

BACKGROUND

Deferred consent is used to recruit patients in emergency research, when informed consent cannot be obtained prior to enrolment. This model of consent allows studies to recruit larger numbers of participants, especially where a surrogate-decision maker may be unavailable to provide consent. Whilst deferred consent offers the potential to promote trial diversity by including under-served groups, it is ethically complex and views about its use amongst these populations require further exploration. The aim of this article is to build upon recent initiatives to improve inclusivity in trials, such as the NIHR INCLUDE project, and consider whether trials methodology research is inclusive, focusing on ethnic minority populations' attitudes towards the use of deferred consent.

MAIN TEXT

Findings from the literature suggest that research regarding attitudes toward recruitment methods like deferred consent largely fail to adequately represent ethnic minorities. Many studies fail to report the composition of patient samples or conduct analyses on any differences between specific patient groups. In those that do, the categorisation of ethnic groups is ambiguous. Frequently diversely different groups are considered as more homogenous than they are. Whilst deferred consent is deemed generally acceptable, analysis of patient sub-groups shows that this attitude is not universal. Those from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds reported higher levels of unacceptability, which was impacted by previous first or second-hand experience of its use and historical mistrust in research. However, whilst deferred consent was found to increase the numbers of black participants enrolled in some trials, their over-enrolment in other trials may raise further concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusivity in clinical trials is important, as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve this, we must ensure that methodological studies such as those exploring attitudes to research are inclusive. More effort is needed to understand the views of under-served groups, such as ethnic minorities, toward research in order to improve participation in clinical trials. Our findings echo those from the INCLUDE project, in that better reporting is needed and increasing the confidence of ethnic minority groups in research requires improving representation throughout the research process. This will involve diversifying research teams and ethics committees.

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the research provisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) in England and Wales: Recruitment of adults with capacity and communication difficulties

BACKGROUND

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) and its accompanying Code of Practice (2007), govern research participation for adults with capacity and communication difficulties in England and Wales. We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the application of these provisions from 2007 to 2019.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included studies with mental capacity in their criteria, involving participants aged 16 years and above, with capacity-affecting conditions and conducted in England and Wales after the implementation of the MCA. Clinical trials of medicines were excluded. We searched seven databases: Academic Search Complete, ASSIA, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PsycINFO and Science Direct. We used narrative synthesis to report our results. Our review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020195652. 28 studies of various research designs met our eligibility criteria: 14 (50.0%) were quantitative, 12 (42.9%) qualitative and 2 (7.1%) mixed methods. Included participants were adults with intellectual disabilities (n = 12), dementia (n = 9), mental health disorders (n = 2), autism (n = 3) and aphasia after stroke (n = 2). We found no studies involving adults with acquired brain injury. Diverse strategies were used in the recruitment of adults with capacity and communication difficulties with seven studies excluding individuals deemed to lack capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found relatively few studies including adults with capacity and communication difficulties with existing regulations interpreted variably. Limited use of consultees and exclusions on the basis of capacity and communication difficulties indicate that this group continue to be under-represented in research. If health and social interventions are to be effective for this population, they need to be included in primary research. The use of strategic adaptations and accommodations during the recruitment process, may serve to support their inclusion.

Unethical governance: capacity legislation and the exclusion of people diagnosed with dementias from research

This paper considers the potential for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) of England and Wales to incentivise the exclusion of people with dementia from research. The MCA is intended to standardise and safeguard the inclusion of people with cognitive impairments in research. This entails various procedural requirements, which in pressurised research contexts can lead researchers to exclude people with dementia as a means of simplifying bureaucratic constraints. I consider the risks of an ‘unethical ethics’, wherein procedural ethics indirectly causes the exclusion of people with dementia from research, undermining historic successes toward increased inclusivity. I suggest several solutions, including enhanced sensitivity to impairments and shifting the burden of proof from justifying inclusion to justifying exclusion. The paper responds to the ‘ethics creep’ tradition in procedural ethics, and critical appraisals of capacity legislation in dementia research. This approach recognises that institutional research ethics is itself a major ethical concern and can unwittingly beget unethical practices. Dementia researchers must be alert to such unethical ethics.

The cost of community research-recruiting community-dwelling participants to a feasibility primary care cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

To support a robust evidence base for the organisation and provision of community-delivered health services for older people, clinical trials need to be designed to account for community-based participant recruitment. There is currently little reported information available on the time and cost of recruiting community-dwelling older people, which makes the completion of cost attribution documentation problematic when applying for research funding.

Main body

We aimed to establish the amount of researcher time it takes to recruit community-dwelling older people to a feasibility primary care cluster randomised controlled trial, including collecting baseline data. The trial was part of a programme of work investigating an intervention to improve the quality of life for older people with frailty. Two researchers conducting home visits to recruit and collect baseline data from participants recorded the time spent on travelling to and from the visit, at the visit itself and any associated administration. The median total researcher activity time per visit was 148 min. We discuss the various elements of recruitment and data collection activity and the factors that impacted the length of time taken, including location, individuals’ capacity and cognition, hearing and visual impairment and the desire for social contact.

Conclusion

Studies cannot reach their recruitment targets if they are unrealistically planned and resourced. We recommend that trials recruiting older people in the community allocate two and a half hours of researcher time per person, on average, for consent, baseline data collection, travel and administration. We acknowledge that a variety of different factors will mean that researcher activity will vary between different community-based trials. Our findings give a good starting point for timing calculations, and evidence on which to base the justification of research activity costings.

Trial registration

Personalised care planning for older people with frailty ISRCTN12363970. 08/11/2018.

How nurses can support the inclusion in research of older people who lack capacity to consent

Research is important because it underpins evidence-based care. However, people who lack capacity to consent are often excluded from research, due partly to ethical concerns and practical challenges, and partly to a lack of awareness among professionals of the legal framework that supports their inclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has extensively affected care home residents, has reinforced the importance of including older people with cognitive impairment in research. Nurses who care for older people with impaired cognition have an important role in ensuring these people have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from research. This article discusses some of the challenges associated with the inclusion in research of older people who lack capacity to consent, including the involvement of relatives and friends in decision-making. The article describes the findings of recent research and shares resources with the aim of supporting nurses to ensure that older people in their care who lack capacity can participate in research.

Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is required for participation in clinical trials, however trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent require different enrolment processes. A family member usually acts as a proxy to make a decision based on the patient's 'presumed will', but these decisions can be challenging and families may experience an emotional and decisional burden. Decisions made on behalf of others are conceptually different from those made for ourselves. Innovations have been developed to improve informed consent processes for research, including a number of decision aids, however there are no interventions for proxies who are faced with more complex decisions. This article outlines the development of a novel decision aid to support families making decisions about research participation on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity to consent.

METHODS

Decision support interventions should be developed using rigorous and evidence-based methods. This intervention was developed using MRC guidance for the development of complex interventions, and a conceptual framework for the development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial. The intervention was informed by a systematic review and analysis of existing information provision. Previous qualitative research with families who acted as proxies enabled the development of a theoretical framework to underpin the intervention. The intervention was iteratively developed with the involvement of lay advisors and relevant stakeholders.

RESULTS

Previous research, theoretical frameworks, and decision aid development frameworks were used to identify and develop the intervention components. The decision aid includes information about the proxy's role and utilises a values clarification exercise and decision support methods to enable a more informed and better-quality decision. Stakeholders, including those representing implementers and receivers of the intervention, contributed to the design and comprehensibility of the decision aid to ensure that it would be acceptable for use.

CONCLUSIONS

Frameworks for the development of decision aids for people considering participating in a clinical trial can be used to develop interventions for family members acting as proxy decision-makers. The decision support tool is acceptable to users. Feasibility testing and outcome measure development is required prior to any evaluation of its effectiveness.

Recruiting older adult participants through crowdsourcing platforms: Mechanical Turk versus Prolific Academic

BACKGROUND

Recruiting older adults (OA) into research is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of using two crowdsourcing platforms, Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and Prolific Academic (ProA), as efficient and low-cost venues for recruiting survey participants aged 65 and older.

METHODS

We developed an online survey to investigate and compare the demographics, technology use, and motivations for research participation of OA on MTurk and ProA. Qualitative responses, response time, word count, and recruitment costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

We recruited 97 OA survey participants on both MTurk and ProA. Participants were similar in terms ofdemographics, technology usage, and motivations for participation (topic interest and payment).

CONCLUSION

Both crowdsourcing platforms are useful for rapid and low-cost recruitment of OA. The OA recruitment process was more efficient with ProA. Crowdsourcing platforms are potential sources of OA research participants; however, the pool is limited to generally healthy, technologically active, and well-educated older adults.

Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: A decade in review

Informed consent is an essential requirement prior to clinical trial participation, however some 'vulnerable' groups, such as people with cognitive impairments and those in medical emergency situations, may lack decisional capacity to consent. This raises ethical and practical challenges when designing and conducting clinical trials involving these populations, who are frequently excluded as a result. Despite recent advances in improving informed consent processes, there has been far less attention paid to the enrolment of adults lacking capacity. Exclusion criteria are an important determinant of the external validity of clinical trial results. The exclusion of these populations, and consent-based recruitment biases which arise from the challenges of identifying and involving surrogate decision-makers, leads to trials which are not representative of the clinical population. This article discusses the involvement of adults who lack decisional capacity to consent in clinical trials and presents the advances over the previous decade and the remaining ethical challenges for the inclusion of this under-represented population in research.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MAIN TEXT

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

CONCLUSIONS

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