The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals

A Mixed-Method Approach to Explore Successful Recruitment and Treatment of Minority Patients on Therapeutic Cancer Clinical Trials at a Tertiary Referral Center Using Photo-Elicitation Interviews

Introduction

Under-represented minority patients (URM) enroll in cancer clinical trials (CCT) at low rates. To gain insight into barriers and facilitators to CCT enrollment, we conducted a mixed method study of URM patients who were successfully treated on a therapeutic CCT from 2018-2021 at all institutional sites.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of 270 minority patients was conducted to identify patient demographics and characteristics. All living URM patients were requested to participate in a survey and qualitative interview using a photo elicitation technique.

Results

Most patients who participated in a CCT were patients with solid tumors, metastatic disease, and did not live in a rural area. Survey data showed that the two most significant drivers of CCT enrollment were potential of benefit to self and to others (altruism). Direct recommendation from a healthcare provider to participate in CCT was critical. URM patients enrolled on a CCT experience a significant burden of symptoms and financial distress. Key themes identified from the interviews that motivated patients to participate included chance for cure, staying positive, altruism and advancement of science, and having diverse representation in research. Patient-level facilitators to participation included social support, cost coverage, and limited treatment options. Sytematic facilitators identified included minimizing logistical barriers, decentralizing cancer clinical trials, increasing awareness via patient narratives, diversifying research staff, minimizing cost, and being clear on puropose and benefit of the trial.

Conclusion

Success stories of minority recruitment can provide useful information to enhance minority accrual. Photo elicitation interviews provide rich narratives of patient experience.

Is equipoise a useful concept to justify randomised controlled trials in the cultural context of Pakistan? A survey of clinicians in relation to a trial of talking therapy for young people who self-harm

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise, also defined as the uncertainty principle, is considered essential when recruiting subjects to a clinical trial. However, equipoise is threatened when clinicians are influenced by their own preferences. Little research has investigated equipoise in the context of trial recruitment.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey sought clinicians' views (operationalised as 11 statements relating to treatments offered in a trial of a psychological intervention for young people) about equipoise and individual treatment preferences in the context of moral justification for recruiting young people at risk of self-harm or suicide to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Youth Culturally Adapted Manual Assisted Psychological Intervention (Y-CMAP) in Pakistan. We compared the views of clinicians involved in Y-CMAP RCT recruitment to those of a sample of clinicians not involved in trial recruitment but treating similar patients, comparing their sociodemographic characteristics and the proportions of those in each group agreeing with each statement.

RESULTS

There was a response rate of 96% (75/78). Findings showed that, during trial recruitment and before the RCT results were known, the majority of all responding clinicians (73.3%) considered Y-CMAP to be an effective treatment for young people at risk of self-harm or suicide. Although there was an acknowledgement of individual preferences for the intervention, there was near consensus (90%) on the need to conduct an RCT for reaching an evidence-based decision. However, there were no significant differences in the proportion of recruiting clinicians reporting a treatment preference for Y-CMAP than non-recruiting clinicians (31 (88.6%) versus 36 (90%), p = 0.566). A significantly higher proportion of non-recruiting clinicians (87.5%) as compared to (48.5%) in the trial (p = 0.000) stated that there may be other treatments that may be equally good for the patients, seemingly undermining a preference for the intervention. Those reporting a treatment preference also acknowledged that there was nothing on which this preference was based, however confident they felt about them, thus accepting clinical equipoise as ethical justification for conducting the RCT. There was a significant group difference in views that treatment overall is better as a result of young patients' participation in the Y-CMAP trial (p = 0.015) (i.e. more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed with this statement). Similarly, more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed on the perceived availability of other treatment options that were good for young people at risk of self-harm (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The paper highlights that clinicians in Pakistan accept the notion of clinical equipoise as an ethical justification for patient participation in RCTs. The need for conducting RCTs to generate evidence base and to reduce bias was considered important by the clinical community.

Exploring motivations for participating in research among Australian women with advanced gynaecological cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

With global moves to increase research among those living with advanced cancer and legitimise consumers as part of cancer research, this article aims to build an understanding of women's motivations and reasons for participating in gynaecological cancer research. As a secondary aim, we considered the role of qualitative methods in enabling active involvement of consumers in research.

METHODS

We applied thematic discursive analysis to 18 in-depth interviews with women diagnosed with advanced (stage III-IV) gynaecological cancer living in Australia.

RESULTS

We found that women viewed research as a vehicle for change in two directions: improving the lives of future generations and improving education and awareness. Underpinning these two framings of research, women spoke about their own role and reasons for participating in this interview study. Women's stories were painted against a backdrop of social and medical silences around gynaecological cancer. It was from such silence that women chose to speak up and position themselves as participating in service for knowledge production.

CONCLUSION

We learned that trust, reciprocity and relationships are central to women's decisions to participate in cancer research. Legitimising consumers in cancer research requires methods, methodologies and practices that pay careful attention to power, control and representation.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

In the name of science: Ethical violations in the ECHO randomised trial

It was in the 1990s, that the possibility of increased transmission of HIV with the use of injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera®, was first flagged in medical literature. This has posed a challenge for its use in countries, particularly in the African region, where the prevalence and transmission rate of HIV is high. In 2015, a randomised 'clinical' trial, the Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO) was launched in four African countries to resolve the question whether the increased risk was causal. Contrary to expectations, the ECHO trial successfully recruited and randomised the specified number of girls/women participants. This paper argues that this was made possible by exercising undue influence, by using incentives, coercive language, and by concealing the real nature of the clinical trial during recruitment. The ECHO trial is unique in subjecting a group of healthy girls/women knowingly to a contraceptive drug with an intention not of finding out whether it is efficacious as a contraceptive, but to find out how risky or life-threatening its use could be. Thus, the ECHO trial has violated one of the central tenets of the Helsinki Declaration by privileging pursuit of knowledge over the interests of the girl/women trial participants from Africa.

Decision-making Among Hepatitis C Virus-negative Transplant Candidates Offered Organs from Donors with HCV Infection

Background

Historically, many organs from deceased donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) were discarded. The advent of highly curative direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies motivated transplant centers to conduct trials of transplanting HCV-viremic organs (nucleic acid amplification test positive) into HCV-negative recipients, followed by DAA treatment. However, the factors that influence candidates' decisions regarding acceptance of transplant with HCV-viremic organs are not well understood.

Methods

To explore patient-level perceptions, influences, and experiences that inform candidate decision-making regarding transplant with organs from HCV-viremic donors, we conducted a qualitative semistructured interview study embedded within 3 clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of transplanting lungs and kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-negative recipients. The study was conducted from June 2019 to March 2021.

Results

Among 44 HCV-negative patients listed for organ transplant who were approached for enrollment in the applicable clinical trial, 3 approaches to decision-making emerged: positivist, risk analyses, and instinctual response. Perceptions of risk contributed to conceptualizations of factors influencing decisions. Moreover, most participants relied on multiple decision-making approaches, either simultaneously or sequentially.

Conclusions

Understanding how different decisional models influence patients' choices regarding transplant with organs from HCV-viremic donors may promote shared decision-making among transplant patients and providers.

Exploring perceptions toward home-care robots for older people in Finland, Ireland, and Japan: A comparative questionnaire study

PURPOSE

To clarify potential users' perceptions toward the development and social implementation of home-care robots in Japan, Ireland, and Finland.

METHODS

Unsigned, self-administered questionnaires were distributed to adults aged 65 or older, family caregivers, and home-care/health and social care professionals (HSCPs). A total of 1004 responses were collected.

RESULTS

In Japan, many people were already familiar with robots in their daily lives. The most notable finding about their perspectives on home-care robots was related to safety. Moreover, 93.7 % of the Japanese respondents said, "If the user cannot decide whether to use a home-care robot, family members who know the user well should decide," followed by 76.4 % in Ireland and 83.1 % in Finland (p < .001). In Ireland, 81.8 % of the respondents said, "I want to help other people and society by participating in the research and development of home-care robots" (Japan: 69.9 %; Finland: 67.5 %) (p = .006). In Finland, many people had a negative impression of robots compared to the other two countries. Finland had the highest percentage (75.4 %) of respondents who said, "Health care professionals should be allowed to use secondary information collected by a home-care robot" (Japan and Ireland: 64 %) (p = .024). Moreover, Ireland and Finland emphasized the need to guarantee the entitlement to receive human care.

CONCLUSIONS

Devising optimal strategies for the development and social implementation of home-care robots by incorporating various perspectives while valuing human dignity will require examination of each country's characteristics with respect to history, culture, policies, and values related to robots.

Physicians' Recognition and Management of Kidney Disease: A Randomized Vignette Study Evaluating the Impact of the KDIGO 2012 CKD Classification System

Rationale & Objective

The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI) and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) chronic kidney disease (CKD) classification systems published in 2002 and 2012, respectively, are recommended worldwide and based on strong epidemiologic data. However, their impact on CKD recognition and management is not well evaluated in clinical practice, and we therefore investigated whether they help physicians recognize and appropriately care for patients with CKD.

Study Design

Randomized vignette experiment with fractional factorial design based on 6 kidney-related scenarios and 3 laboratory presentation methods reflecting the CKD guidelines. Participants evaluated 1 of 3 subsets of the 18 vignettes (ie, 6 vignettes each with 4 answer alternatives).

Setting & Participants

249 interns, general practitioners, and residents/fellows attending postgraduate meetings and courses in Norway and the United States.

Intervention

Kidney-related results (serum creatinine level and urinary albumin excretion) were presented as the “minimal data” (high/low levels), KDOQI-2002 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] reported automatically), or KDIGO-2012 (eGFR + albuminuria categorization + risk for complications) laboratory report.

Outcome

CKD management choice by physicians.

Results

When kidney laboratory data were presented as the KDOQI-2002 report (automatic eGFR calculation), there was a significantly higher odds for correct patient management decisions compared with the minimal data report (OR, 1.57; P < 0.001). Additional significant improvement was obtained with the KDIGO-2012 report (OR, 2.28 for correct answer vs minimal data report [P < 0.001]; OR, 1.45 compared to KDOQI-2002 report [P = 0.005]). The KDIGO classification system improved physician management in 4 of the 6 clinical scenarios covering a wide range of kidney-related topics. Interaction analysis showed that general practitioners and those with 1 to 3 years of internal medicine experience had the greatest improvements with the new presentation techniques.

Limitations

Physicians’ management was evaluated by theoretical scenarios rather than direct patient care.

Conclusions

Automatic GFR estimation, albuminuria categorization, and notification of the associated risk for complications improve most physicians` recognition and management of a wide range of CKD clinical scenarios.

Evidence Types and Trends in Tropical Forest Conservation Literature

To improve the likelihood of conservation success, donors, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and researchers are increasingly interested in making conservation decisions based on scientific evidence. A major challenge in doing so has been the wide variability in the methodological rigor of existing studies. We present a simple framework to classify different types of conservation evidence, which can be used to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and biases in the conservation effectiveness literature. We then apply this framework to evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of four important strategies in tropical forest conservation. Even though there has been an increase in methodologically rigorous studies over time, countries that are globally important in terms of their biodiversity are still heavily under-represented by any type of conservation effectiveness evidence.

A qualitative study on stakeholders' views on the participation of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study: a low-risk obstetrical RCT

Background

Bioethicists argue that inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research should be more routine to increase the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses. Yet, it is unknown whether pregnant women and others directly involved are willing to be routinely included. Therefore, we first need to establish what these stakeholders think about research participation in regular pregnancy-related research. However, studies on their views are scarce. In our study, we piggy-backed on a relatively conventional RCT, the APOSTEL VI study, to identify the views of stakeholders on inclusion of pregnant women in this study.

Methods

We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed pregnant women (n = 14) recruited for the APOSTEL VI study, in addition to healthcare professionals (n = 14), Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) (n = 5) and regulators (n = 7) involved in clinical research in pregnant women.

Results

Three themes characterise stakeholders’ views on inclusion of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study. Additionally, one theme characterises stakeholders’ interest in inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general. First, pregnant women participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and secondarily for altruistic motives, contrary to hypothetical studies. Second, a gatekeeping tendency hampers recruitment of pregnant women who might be eligible and willing, and questions about pregnant women’s decisional capacities surface. Third, healthcare professionals sometimes use the counselling conversation to steer pregnant women in a direction. Fourth, all stakeholders are hesitant about inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general due to a protective sentiment.

Conclusions

Pregnant women are willing to participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and altruistic motives. However, an underlying protective sentiment, resulting in gatekeeping and directive counselling, sometimes hampers recruitment in the APOSTEL VI study as well as in clinical research in general. While bioethicists claim that inclusion of pregnant women should be customary, our study indicates that healthcare professionals, regulators, RECs and pregnant women themselves are not necessarily interested in inclusion. Advancing the situation and increasing the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses may require additional measures such as investing in the recruitment and feasibility of RCTs and stimulating pregnant women’s decisional capacities.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-019-2209-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Facilitators and barriers to pregnant women's participation in research: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although there is consensus among many that exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research should be justified, there is uncertainty as to whether and why pregnant women themselves would be willing to participate even if they were found to be eligible. The objective was to identify the reasons why pregnant women participate in clinical research and thereby to distinguish between facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles regarding pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We used the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and retrieved additional articles through manually searching the reference lists. We included all articles that reported on pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We accumulated all reasons that were mentioned in the total of articles and collated them to themes, classifying these themes as a facilitator or a barrier.

RESULTS

The search identified thirty articles that met the inclusion criteria. Themes classified as facilitators: aspirational benefits, collateral benefits, direct benefits, third party influence and lack of inconvenience. Themes classified as barriers: inconveniences, risks, randomisation, lack of trust in research enterprise, medical reasons and third party influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women report mostly altruistic and personal reasons for their willingness to participate in clinical research, while barriers primarily relate to inconveniences. It appears that pregnant women's described reasoning is similar to the described reasoning of non-pregnant research subjects. Enhancing the facilitators and overcoming the barriers is the next step to increase the evidence-base underlying maternal and foetal health.

Reflections on translation: Views of participants in a multisite Canadian CCSVI clinical trial

Background

We sought to characterize the perspectives of participants in Canada's phase I/II chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) clinical trial prior to and after the disclosure of trial results.

Methods

This was a researcher-administered survey of individuals who participated in Canada's CCSVI trial (Clincialtrials.gov, NCT01864941) about their (1) motivations for participating, (2) understanding of the trial process, and (3) perspectives on the social value of the trial.

Results

A total of 63 participants completed the survey. Participants were motivated to participate by altruism (mean score = 4.56 out of 5) and a desire to access the intervention in Canada (mean score = 3.63 out of 5). Many participants expected medical benefits, such as partial disease reversal (mean score = 3.32 out of 5). Participants felt strongly that the crossover trial design promoted fairness (mean score = 4.65 out of 5). Participants' familiarity with the CCSVI controversy increased significantly after the results were revealed (p = 0.0001). Despite negative trial results, participants still felt that the trial was an appropriate use of tax dollars (mean score = 4.68 out of 5). Many (38%) upheld the belief that further CCSVI research is necessary (responses of 4 out of 5 or higher).

Conclusions

There is a strong movement in science today to ensure that research agendas reflect the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including research participants. While previous work suggests that negative findings adversely affect trust in science, the perspectives of participants in this study demonstrate that good trial design and resilience can prevail over expected tensions.

The biomarker-based diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. 1-ethical and societal issues

There is great interest in the use of biomarkers to assist in the timely identification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in individuals with mild symptoms. However, the inclusion of AD biomarkers in clinical criteria poses socioethical challenges. The Geneva Task Force for the Roadmap of Alzheimer's Biomarkers was established to deliver a systematic strategic research agenda (aka roadmap) to promote efficient and effective validation of AD biomarkers and to foster their uptake in clinical practice. In this article, we summarize the workshop discussion of the Geneva Task Force "ethical and societal issues" working group, which comprised bioethicists, clinicians, health economists, and representatives of those affected by AD. The working group identified the following key issues that need to be included in the roadmap: improving access to services through timely diagnosis, the need for a diagnostic research protocol before moving to clinical routine, recruitment in diagnostic research protocols in the absence of effective therapy, respect for the autonomy of the individual with mild cognitive impairment in information and consent process and the right not to know biomarkers results, need for counseling programs, disclosure of the diagnosis in a structured environment and the involvement of family members, health policies including the individuals' views and the protection of their interests, and the economic costs for society.

The need for better evidence to evaluate the health & economic benefits of India's Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana

In this review the existing evidence on the impact of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) is discussed in the context of international literature available on health insurance. We describe potential pathways through which health insurance can affect health and economic outcomes, discuss evidence from other developing countries, and identify potential biases and inconsistencies in existing studies on RSBY impact. Given the relatively recent introduction of RSBY, lack of quality, verifiable data on utilization patterns, and the absence of reliable evaluation studies, there is a need to exercise caution while assessing the merits of the programme. Considering the enormous potential and cost of the programme, we emphasize the need for a rigorous impact evaluation of RSBY. It will not only help capture the real impact of the scheme, but may also be able to estimate the extent of systemic inefficiencies at the level of the consumer.

Measuring informed consent capacity in an Alzheimer's disease clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Accurately and efficiently determining a participant's capacity to consent to research is critically important to protect the rights of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

METHODS

Understanding of the informed consent document was assessed in 613 community-dwelling patients with mild-to-moderate AD enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Associations were examined between clinically determined capacity to consent and (1) patient demographics and clinical characteristics and (2) the Informed Consent Questionnaire (ICQ), an objective measurement of a participant's factual understanding and perceived understanding.

RESULTS

A total of 453 (74%) participants were determined to have capacity to consent by clinical judgment. ICQ perceived understanding, race, measures of cognitive function, and caregiver time were all significantly associated with the determination of capacity in multivariate analyses.

DISCUSSION

We found a significant association between capacity and disease severity level, caregiver time, race, and ICQ perceived understanding.

Equipoise in the Enhanced Supression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Trial (ESPRIT): a critical appraisal

Enhanced Supression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Trial (ESPRIT) was a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial in which participants were randomized between eptifibatide and placebo. A “clinical hold” was initially placed on the trial by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was concerned about the placebo-only control arm. The hold was lifted after additional information concerning the use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in clinical practice, derived from a survey of interventional cardiologists, was provided. The trial's principal investigator and colleagues have described how these issues were resolved, and advance a claim of equipoise for the trial. In this critical appraisal we examine the information and arguments proffered in support of the trial design and conclude that they evidence a misunderstanding of equipoise. We believe that a placebo-only control arm was not justified by the information provided by the trialists.

Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding

Background Despite widespread agreement on the importance of informed consent in clinical research, uncertainty remains about the adequacy of current consent procedures and documentation.

Methods The objective of the study was to compare an informed consent document developed by a consumer group of potential study participants to one developed by the study investigators. The study was a cluster randomized, controlled study embedded in a ‘parent’ randomized controlled trial of 1092 participants with Gulf War veterans’ illnesses recruited in 1999–2000 at 20 US medical centers. Centers were randomized to the investigator-developed or participant-developed consent document. The primary outcome measure was an Informed Consent Questionnaire-4 (ICQ-4), a validated four-item scale measuring self-reported participant understanding scored from 0 to 1. Secondary outcomes included the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and measures of study refusal and adherence to the parent trial protocol.

Results There were no significant differences between consent documents on the ICQ-4 score overall or at any of the time points. Mean (95% CI) treatment differences ranged from 0.020 (0.015, 0.055) (better understanding) at entry to 0.021 (0.054, 0.012) (worse understanding) at three-months for the participant versus the investigator document group. There were also no significant differences in satisfaction, adherence to the protocol, or in the proportion of patients who refused to participate in the trial.

Limitations The consumer group may not have been representative of the study participants and they did not suggest dramatic changes to the consent document. The outcome assessment questionnaire was not validated prior to the trial's initiation.

Conclusions Consumer modification of the consent document did not lead to either benefit or harm in understanding, satisfaction, or study refusal and adherence rates. This study did demonstrate, however, that embedding consent studies in a clinical trial is feasible and can address important questions about informed consent without disrupting the primary study.

How informed is declared altruism in clinical trials? A qualitative interview study of patient decision-making about the QUEST trials (Quality of Life after Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction)

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit sufficient participants, despite altruism being cited as their motivation. Previous investigations of factors influencing participation decisions have been methodologically limited. This study evaluated how women weigh up different motivations after initially expressing altruism, and explored their understanding of a trial and its alternatives. The trial was the 'Quality of Life after Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction' (QUEST) trial.

METHODS

Thirty-nine women participated in qualitative interviews 1 month post-surgery. Twenty-seven women (10 trial decliners and 17 acceptors) who spontaneously mentioned 'altruism' were selected for thematic analysis. Verbatim transcripts were coded independently by two researchers. Participants' motivations to accept or decline randomisation were cross-referenced with their understanding of the QUEST trials and the process of randomisation.

RESULTS

The seven emerging themes were: (1) altruism expressed by acceptors and decliners; (2) overriding personal needs in decliners; (3) pure altruism in acceptors; (4) 'hypothetical altruism' amongst acceptors; (5) weak altruism amongst acceptors; (6) conditional altruism amongst acceptors; and (7) sense of duty to participate. Poor understanding of the trial rationale and its implications was also evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Altruism was a motivating factor for participation in the QUEST randomised controlled trials where the main outcomes comprised quality of life and allocated treatments comprised established surgical procedures. Women's decisions were influenced by their understanding of the trial. Both acceptors and decliners of the trial expressed 'altruism', but most acceptors lacked an obvious treatment preference, hoped for personal benefits regarding a treatment allocation, or did not articulate complete understanding of the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

QUEST A, ISRCTN38846532 ; Date assigned 6 January 2010. QUEST B, ISRCTN92581226 ; Date assigned 6 January 2010.

Principal components analysis to identify influences on research communication and engagement during an environmental disaster

OBJECTIVES

To discern community attitudes towards research engagement in Libby, Montana, the only Superfund site for which a public health emergency has been declared.

STUDY DESIGN

Survey study of convenience samples of residents near the Libby, Montana Superfund site.

PARTICIPANTS

Residents of the Libby, Montana area were recruited from a local retail establishment (N=120, survey 1) or a community event (N=127, survey 2).

MEASURES

Two surveys were developed in consultation with a Community Advisory Panel.

RESULTS

Principal components of survey 1 showed four dimensions of community members' attitudes towards research engagement: (1) researcher communication and contributions to the community, (2) identity and affiliation of the researchers requesting participation, (3) potential personal barriers, including data confidentiality, painful or invasive procedures and effects on health insurance and (4) research benefits for the community, oneself or family. The score on the first factor was positively related to desire to participate in research (r=0.31, p=0.01). Scores on factors 2 and 3 were higher for those with diagnosis of asbestos-related disease (ARD) in the family (Cohen's d=0.41, 0.57). Survey 2 also found more positive attitudes towards research when a family member had ARD (Cohen's d=0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Principal components analysis shows different dimensions of attitudes towards research engagement. The different dimensions are related to community members' desire to be invited to participate in research, awareness of past research in the community and having been screened or diagnosed with a health condition related to the Superfund contaminant.

Risks and benefits of trial participation: A qualitative study of participants’ perspectives in Russia

Background:

The Russian Federation is one of the emerging clinical trial regions where the numbers of international clinical trials have been significantly rising over the course of recent years.

Purpose:

Our aims were to describe and explain risk–benefit calculus by clinical trial participants in Russia and to analyse the significance of the results for the ethical regulation of globalizing clinical trials.

Methods:

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 individuals participating in trials for cardiovascular disease. Analysis was based on the inductive constant comparative method.

Results:

Interviewed participants perceived multiple benefits in trial enrolment including regular check-ups, provision and explanation of individual test results, the opportunity to ask investigators for advice and the provision of treatment recommendations for those with limited access to a physician outside of the trial. Participants tried to manage risks of trial enrolment by paying attention to how they felt and reporting changes to investigators. Regular monitoring, the opportunity to drop out of the trial and health insurance provision in case of adverse events were viewed as further minimizing individual risks. Importantly, interviewed trial participants did not assess the risks and benefits of a single trial independently of wider social situation or particularities of their own health condition. Value of trial enrolment benefits for participants was enhanced by the healthcare system that was viewed as being unresponsive to the needs of people with cardiovascular disease. Therefore, in their risk–benefit assessment, participants weighed enrolment risks against the risks of dealing with their fragile health without continuous contact with a medical professional.

Limitations:

A relatively small number of interviews was conducted, only participants of cardiovascular disease trials were interviewed and the extent to which the described perspectives are generalizable is not established.

Conclusion:

The risk–benefit assessment as performed by most interviewed trial participants involved multiple components, including the ones unrelated to the trial itself, and was largely context-dependent. Perspectives of research participants can enrich frameworks for the evaluation of trial risks and benefits.

Understanding of research, genetics and genetic research in a rapid ethical assessment in north west Cameroon

Background

There is limited assessment of whether research participants in low-income settings are afforded a full understanding of the meaning of medical research. There may also be particular issues with the understanding of genetic research. We used a rapid ethical assessment methodology to explore perceptions surrounding the meaning of research, genetics and genetic research in north west Cameroon.

Methods

Eleven focus group discussions (including 107 adults) and 72 in-depth interviews were conducted with various stakeholders in two health districts in north west Cameroon between February and April 2012.

Results

Most participants appreciated the role of research in generating knowledge and identified a difference between research and healthcare but gave varied explanations as to this difference. Most participants' understanding of genetics was limited to concepts of hereditary, with potential benefits limited to the level of the individual or family. Explanations based on supernatural beliefs were identified as a special issue but participants tended not to identify any other special risks with genetic research.

Conclusion

We demonstrated a variable level of understanding of research, genetics and genetic research, with implications for those carrying out genetic research in this and other low resource settings. Our study highlights the utility of rapid ethical assessment prior to complex or sensitive research.

Participants' understanding of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) through informed consent procedures in the RCT for breast cancer screening, J-START

Background

It is often difficult to enrol healthy volunteers into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) as there are barriers to participants’ proper understanding of a trial. This study aimed to evaluate degrees of understanding of the informed consent (IC) process among healthy volunteers who participated in an RCT. Additionally, factors associated with degree of understanding were investigated.

Methods

The J-START (the Japan STrategic Anti-cancer Randomized controlled Trial) is an RCT investigating the effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. To evaluate participants’ understanding of the J-START, we administered questionnaires to 376 Japanese women on the day of enrolment at five study sites across Japan. The respondents were asked to complete the anonymous questionnaire within 2 weeks. We assessed objective understanding and perceived subjective understanding of IC using a Japanese version of the Quality of Informed Consent scale (QuIC). Then we analyzed the characteristics of women whose understanding was poor, and clarified the association between providing information and their understanding of the study protocol.

Results

The average QuIC scores were 78.2 and 82.2 (out of 100 each) for objective and subjective understanding, respectively. These are generally acceptable scores for participants’ understanding of an RCT. However, there were four domains with low scores, indicating poor understanding: (1) experimental nature of the study, (2) potential risks or discomfort, (3) benefit to self, and (4) compensation.

Conclusions

Healthy volunteers generally well understood the J-START. Nevertheless, there were some domains in need of improvement. In order to facilitate participants’ understanding, it is necessary to provide training to reduce differences in information-providing procedures between medical centres and to endeavour to provide consistent information and conditions.

Trial registration

The J-START was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registration (UMIN-CTR), Japan (registration number: UMIN000000757), on July 1, 2007.

Psychosocial Interventions for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Families

Few randomized controlled trials of family-based psychosocial interventions involving patients and at least one other family member have been conducted in the context of advanced cancer. Moreover, existing interventions have largely been stand-alone programs that have not been well integrated into routine palliative and clinical care. Programs that address this gap may not only improve patient and caregiver quality of life (QOL) but also the quality of palliative and supportive care services. The aim of this narrative review is to describe published interventions that have attempted to improve the QOL of advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers (eg, spouses, partners, and other family members) and to describe some of the challenges that make it difficult to implement such programs in clinical settings. Toward that end, the added value that family-based psychosocial interventions can bring to advanced cancer care is first described. Next, the literature on family-based interventions in advanced cancer is reviewed, and different theoretical approaches and outcomes are highlighted. This is followed by a description of some of the health system barriers to supportive family care in advanced cancer care. The article concludes with a synthesis of research findings and proposes directions for future research.

Patients' willingness to participate in a breast cancer biobank at screening mammogram

To characterize patients' willingness to donate a biospecimen for future research as part of a breast cancer-related biobank involving a general screening population. We performed a prospective cross-sectional study of 4,217 women aged 21-89 years presenting to our facilities for screening mammogram between December 2010 and October 2011. This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by our institutional review board. We collected data on patients' interest in and actual donation of a biospecimen, motivators and barriers to donating, demographic information, and personal breast cancer risk factors. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify patient-level characteristics associated with an increased likelihood to donate. Mean patient age was 57.8 years (SD 11.1 years). While 66.0 % (2,785/4,217) of patients were willing to donate blood or saliva during their visit, only 56.4 % (2,378/4,217) actually donated. Women with a college education (OR = 1.27, p = 0.003), older age (OR = 1.02, p < 0.001), previous breast biopsy (OR = 1.23, p = 0.012), family history of breast cancer (OR = 1.23, p = 0.004), or a comorbidity (OR = 1.22, p = 0.014) were more likely to donate. Asian-American women were significantly less likely to donate (OR = 0.74, p = 0.005). The major reason for donating was to help all future patients (42.3 %) and the major reason for declining donation was privacy concerns (22.3 %). A large proportion of women participating in a breast cancer screening registry are willing to donate blood or saliva to a biobank. Among minority participants, Asian-American women are less likely to donate and further qualitative research is required to identify novel active recruitment strategies to insure their involvement.

Motivational assessment of non-treatment buprenorphine research participation in heroin dependent individuals

BACKGROUND

Heroin abuse remains an important public health problem, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Insight into this problem is gained from interviewing addicted individuals. However, we lack systematic data on factors that motivate heroin users to participate in non-treatment research that offers both financial incentives (compensation) and non-financial incentives (e.g., short-term medication).

AIM

To better understand the relative importance of several types of personal motivations to participate in non-treatment buprenorphine research, and to relate self-motivations to social, economic, demographic and drug use factors.

METHODS

Heroin dependent volunteers (N=235 total; 57 female and 178 male; 136 African American, 86 Caucasian, and 13 Other) applied for non-therapeutic buprenorphine research in an urban outpatient setting from 2004 to 2008. We conducted a semi-structured behavioral economic interview, after which participants ranked 11 possible motivations for research participation.

RESULTS

Although the study was repeatedly described as non-treatment research involving buprenorphine, participants often ranked some treatment-related motivations as important (wanting to reduce/stop heroin use, needing a medication to get stabilized/detoxify). Some motivations correlated with income, heroin use, and years since marketing of buprenorphine. Two dimensions emerged from principal component analysis of motivation rankings: (1) treatment motivation vs. greater immediate needs and (2) commitment to trying alternatives vs. a more accepting attitude toward traditional interventions. In summary, heroin addicts' self-motivations to engage in non-therapeutic research are complex--they value economic gain but not exclusively or primarily--and relate to variables such as socioeconomic factors and drug use.

Altruism among participants in cancer clinical trials

Background Patients’ motivations for participation in cancer clinical trials are incompletely understood. Even less is known about the factors that influence participants’ motivations for enrolling in trials.

Purpose We studied the reasons why adult patients and parents of pediatric patients agree to participate in cancer trials. We focused on the role of altruism across all phases of trial.

Methods We surveyed adult patients and parents of pediatric patients participating in phase I, II, or III cancer clinical trials. We asked respondents why they agreed to enroll, and examined correlates of altruistic motivation using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results Among 205 adults and 48 parents of children participating in cancer trials, 47% reported that altruistic motivations were ‘very important’ to their decisions to enroll. In multivariate analysis with phase III trial participants as the reference group, phase I trial participants least often identified altruism as a ‘very important’ motivation for enrolling (phase I OR 0.4, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.2–0.8; phase II OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5–1.5, overall P = 0.017). Thirty-three respondents (13%) reported being motivated primarily by altruism. In multivariate analysis, participants with poor prognoses—defined as an expected 5-year disease-free survival of ≤10%—reported altruism as their primary motivation less often than those with better prognoses (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1–0.5, P = 0.001). Altruistic motivations did not differ between adult patients and parents of pediatric participants.

Limitations The data are derived from related academic medical centers in one city, and the study sample reflects limited sociodemographic diversity, thereby limiting generalizability to other settings.

Conclusions Although cancer trial participants commonly report that altruism contributed to their decision to enroll, it is rarely their primary motivation for study participation. Participants in early phase trials and those with poor prognoses are least often motivated by altruism.

Social validity of randomised controlled trials in health services research and intellectual disabilities: a qualitative exploration of stakeholder views

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of evidence-based practice in medicine but they have had limited influence in the field of intellectual disabilities. Previous literature suggests that participants and professionals have limited tolerance for this type of research methodology. However, it is not known how well service users, carers and other health professionals understand and accept the need for RCTs, and why it is important for individuals with intellectual disabilities to be included in this kind of research.

Methods

We examined individual perceptions of RCTs in 51 participants (18 carers, 6 service users and 27 professionals) using semi-structured interviews. A framework approach was adopted in the analysis of data.

Results

We found that participants had concerns about capacity and resource allocation but held positive views towards this type of research methodology. Understanding of the principles behind RCTs was poor amongst service users and a minority of carers, but mediated by previous exposure to research for professionals.

Conclusions

The social validity of RCTs in intellectual disabilities may be compromised by lack of understanding of the design and the on-going concerns about obtaining informed consent especially in incapacitated adults. However, the overall finding that the need for this form of research was seen in a positive light suggests that there is a turning point in the perceptions of stakeholders working in intellectual disabilities services. We recommend that researchers include on-going education on RCT design during trials, tailoring it to all stakeholders with emphasis on strong service user and care involvement. This could be a pivotal element in improving acceptability of, and recruitment to RCTs.

"Did the trial kill the intervention?" experiences from the development, implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention

Background

The development, implementation and evaluation of any new health intervention is complex. This paper uses experiences from the design, implementation and evaluation of a rehabilitation programme to shed light on, and prompt discussion around, some of the complexities involved in such an undertaking.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 trial participants and five members of staff at the conclusion of a trial evaluating a rehabilitation programme aimed at promoting recovery after stem cell transplantation.

Results

This study identified a number of challenges relating to the development and evaluation of complex interventions. The difficulty of providing a standardised intervention that was acceptable to patients was highlighted in the participant interviews. Trial participants and some members of staff found the concept of equipoise and randomisation challenging and there was discord between the psychosocial nature of the intervention and the predominant bio-medical culture in which the research took place.

Conclusions

A lack of scientific evidence as to the efficacy of an intervention does not preclude staff and patients holding strong views about the benefits of an intervention. The evaluation of complex interventions should, where possible, facilitate not restrict that complexity. Within the local environment where the trial is conducted, acquiescence from those in positions of authority is insufficient; commitment to the trial is required.

Health Services Research Methods In Pharmacy

The aim of this paper is to review the methodologies employed by health service and pharmacy practice researchers in the evaluation of pharmacy services. The review is in two parts. Part 1 discusses the application of different study designs and frameworks in the evaluation of existing and innovative services and interventions; part 2, to be published in a later issue, will address the methods and measures employed in the evaluation process. The studies included in this review were selected to give examples of different study objectives, designs and frameworks and their application in pharmacy settings. Although many of the issues regarding study design and evaluation frameworks may be relevant to clinical trials comparing the efficacy of alternative drug therapies, the focus of this paper is on pharmacy services.

Understanding of research: a Sri Lankan perspective

Background

Lack of proper understanding on the part of researchers about public understanding of research and informed consent will increase the potential for malpractice. As a part of a larger study on ethics and informed consent in Sri Lanka, this study aimed to ascertain the level of understanding of 'research' by exploring the views of the public and professionals.

Methods

Convenience sampling and snow ball technique were used for recruitment with an emphasis on balanced age and gender representation, diverse educational, socio-cultural and professional backgrounds, and previous research experience, either as researchers or participants. Content analysis of the data was carried out.

Results

66 persons (37 males, 29 females) participated. Although fundamentally a qualitative study, themes were also quantitatively analysed for informative results. Most participants thought that the word 'research' meant searching, looking, inquiring while some others thought it meant gathering information, gaining knowledge and learning.

A third of participants did not offer an alternative word for research. Others suggested the words survey, exploration, search, experiment, discovery, invention and study as being synonymous. Doctors, health professionals, health institutions, scientists, professionals, businessmen, pharmaceutical companies, students, teachers were identified as people who conduct research.

Participants indicated that crucial information on deciding to participate in research included objectives of the research, project importance and relevance, potential benefits to individuals and society, credibility & legitimacy of researchers, what is expected of participant, reason for selection, expected outcome, confidentiality and ability to withdraw at any time. A majority (89%) expressed their willingness to participate in future research.

Conclusions

The results show that with or without prior experience in research, participants in this study had a reasonable understanding of research. The findings show that a decision about taking part in research is dependent on knowledge, education and also on social networks.

The results demonstrate that the majority were supportive of health research and believe that research is beneficial to the welfare of society.

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

Background

Randomised controlled trials of healthcare interventions depend on the participation of volunteers who might not derive any personal health benefit from their participation. The idea that altruistic-type motives are important for trial participation is understandably widespread, but recent studies suggest considerations of personal benefit can influence participation decisions in various ways.

Methods

Non-participant observation of recruitment consultations (n = 25) and in-depth interviews with people invited to participate in the UK REFLUX trial (n = 13).

Results

Willingness to help others and to contribute towards furthering medical knowledge featured strongly among the reasons people gave for being interested in participating in the trial. But decisions to attend recruitment appointments and take part were not based solely on consideration of others. Rather, they were presented as conditional on individuals additionally perceiving some benefit (and no significant disadvantage) for themselves. Potential for personal benefit or disadvantage could be seen in both the interventions being evaluated and trial processes.

Conclusions

The term 'conditional altruism' concisely describes the willingness to help others that may initially incline people to participate in a trial, but that is unlikely to lead to trial participation in practice unless people also recognise that participation will benefit them personally. Recognition of conditional altruism has implications for planning trial recruitment communications to promote informed and voluntary trial participation.

Trial registration

ISRCTN15517081

Ulysses contracts for the doctor and for the patient

Research subjects participating in randomised clinical trials have a right to drop out of a study without specifying any reason for this. However, leaving a trial may be contradictory to their own general interests in medical research since drop outs may lead to biased conclusions and loss of valuable medical information. We suggest in this paper that self-binding "Ulysses contracts" that are non-exploitative and based on autonomous decisions by research subjects as well as by investigating doctors should be implemented with stopping rules adjusted to the needs of different kinds of randomised clinical trials.

Boundary setting in breast cancer research: a study of the experience of women volunteer research subjects

Drawing on a research collaboration between a group of medical physicists and social scientists, this paper aims to explore female volunteers' experiences of participating in a project for developing a new breast disease diagnostic technology using an optical imaging system. In order to understand how these women make sense of being a volunteer, we examine the complexities of their experiences in this type of research setting through an empirically-based study involving participant observation and semi-structured interviews with the volunteers. Traditionally, volunteers are constructed as passive research material. In contrast, the women in our study are by no means docile bodies - but are active in deploying strategies that create opportunities to exert a level of control over perceived threats within the research encounter. We examine how volunteers translate these threats into 'boundaries' about what is and is not acceptable or permissible within this environment, paying particular attention to boundary setting around participation, and invasions of the body (such as pain, touch and exposure, and physical safety), and exploring the strategies volunteers draw on to counter perceived threats to their bodies.

Clinical trial literacy among injecting drug users in Sydney, Australia: A pilot study

This pilot study examined knowledge, understanding and perceived acceptability of key methodological concepts in clinical trials among injecting drug users (IDUs) in Sydney, Australia. Participants were clinical trial-experienced (n = 17) and trial-naïve (n = 99) IDUs recruited from community needle and syringe programs, and through institutions involved in clinical trials with IDU participants. Cross-sectional data were collected via a study-specific interviewer-administered survey. Following detailed verbal explanations, higher proportions of trial-experienced than trial-naïve participants demonstrated an understanding of all clinical trial concepts assessed, including single blinding (94% versus 60%); placebo (94% versus 49%); equipoise (71% versus 60%); comparison (59% versus 46%); randomisation (59% versus 21%); and double blinding (47% versus 3%). Multivariate analyses indicated a better understanding among trial-experienced participants. Participants who demonstrated an understanding of 'placebo' and 'double blinding' were significantly more likely to perceive these concepts to be acceptable than those who did not. Results indicate the need for targeted education programs that adequately inform IDUs about clinical trial concepts prior to recruitment to a clinical trial, and support adaptations of informed consent procedures to ensure trial participants' comprehensive understanding of methodologies and their implications.

Data and safety monitoring boards: some enduring questions

Data Safety and Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) have been referred to as a "growth industry," and this trend continues to be fueled by recent FDA guidance and the NIH's requirement that DSMBs be employed in virtually all phase III clinical trials. The widening role of DSMBs has been sporadically questioned on ethical grounds, but growth has continued, despite the fact that many of the questions endure, unanswered, save for repeated references to safeguarding the scientific integrity of trials. This may be about to change. The recently appointed director of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Jerry Menikoff, is on record as regarding current practices--where consent forms often promise what the DSMB has been assembled to specifically not provide--as constituting fraudulent behavior. That is, a subject may inherently rely on, to their detriment, information that has been misrepresented in the consent document. In this paper, we assemble some of the enduring questions and top them off with Menikoff's tour de force to present what we hope will be a compelling argument to require that consent forms fairly represent what the DSMB will do--and not do--with trial data as they accumulate. We argue that DSMBs should be used only in rare circumstances, and question the practice of precluding principal investigators from DSMB membership, but our main thrust is to ensure that DSMBs, when used at all, are properly described in trial consent forms.

Patients' perceptions of research in emergency settings: a study of survivors of sudden cardiac death

Conditions such as stroke, sudden cardiac death, and major traumatic injury are major causes of morbidity and mortality, and there is a need for clinical research to improve treatment for these conditions. However, because informed consent is often impossible, research in these situations poses ethical concerns. Despite growing literature on the ethics of emergency research, little is known about the views of relevant patient populations regarding research in emergency settings conducted under an exception from informed consent (EFIC). In this qualitative study, survivors of sudden cardiac death (SCD)--recruited from an outpatient cardiology clinic in late 2005--were asked their views on scenarios representing different types of EFIC research. Patients were generally accepting of such research, more than previous studies would have predicted. Their concerns focused primarily on study risks and benefits and less on waiving consent or randomization. EFIC research is of international importance and ethical controversy. This study represents the first attempt to assess views of SCD survivors on this type of research and one of the first to assess patients' views in-depth. Findings indicate broad acceptance of EFIC research among this population and re-focus discussion on what risks are reasonable for non-autonomous subjects. The study also demonstrates potential for valuable input from patients regarding complicated and ethically challenging issues using a method that allows them to develop opinions on unfamiliar issues.

Financial disclosure and clinical research: what is important to participants?

OBJECTIVE

To assess what participants in company-sponsored clinical trials wish to know about financial aspects of the study.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional questionnaire administered to 324 participants in six clinical trials conducted at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in 1999-2000 and 2006 for non-acute conditions (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and influenza vaccine efficacy).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' desire for information on study funding, investigators' conflicts of interest, and use of accrued funds.

RESULTS

259 participants (80%) completed the survey. Participants wanted to be informed about the identity of the project sponsor (148 participants; 57%), whether the investigators owned shares in the company (105; 41%) or received travel grants (83; 32%), how much funding was accrued at study completion (88; 34%), how accrued funds were used (98; 38%), and who approved their use (91; 35%). After adjusting for year of survey and level of education, younger subjects (aged <or= 60 years) wished to be informed more often than older participants of who sponsored the project (odds ratio [OR], 2.35 [95% CI, 1.21-4.55]; P=0.012), whether the investigators owned shares in the company (OR, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.27-4.60]; P=0.007) and how much funding was available for other uses (OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.94-3.41]; P=0.078).

CONCLUSION

While most participants indicated that they would take part in clinical research again regardless of whether they received financial information, providing information on the sponsor, the investigators' financial interest in the company, whether accrual of funds is expected, and how these funds will be spent should satisfy the interests of participants in company-sponsored clinical trials.

Improving informed consent: pilot of a decision aid for women invited to participate in a breast cancer prevention trial (IBIS-II DCIS)

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians report difficulties with the process of informed consent to clinical trials and audiotape audits show that critical information is often omitted or poorly presented. Decision aids (DAs) may assist in improving consent.

AIMS

This study piloted a DA booklet for a high priority breast cancer prevention trial, IBIS-II DCIS, which compares the efficacy of an aromatase inhibitor (anastrozole) with tamoxifen in women who have had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHOD

Thirty-one Australian women participating in the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial and who are currently in follow-up agreed to read the IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and the DCIS DA booklet, complete a set of standardized questionnaires, and provide feedback on the DA via a semi-structured phone interview.

RESULTS

Women found the DA helpful in deciding about trial participation, reporting that it aided their understanding over and above the approved IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and was not anxiety provoking. Women's understanding of the rationale and methods of clinical trials and the IBIS-II DCIS trial was very good; with more than 80% of items answered correctly. The only areas that were not understood well were the concepts of randomization and blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the DA will be acceptable to and valued by potential participants in the IBIS-II DCIS study. The revised DA is currently being evaluated prospectively in a randomized controlled trial. If successful, such DAs could transform the consent process to large clinical trials and may also reduce dropout rates.

Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents

Guidelines on informed consent intend to protect patients and promote ethical research conduct. To give informed consent, individuals should understand the purpose, process, risks, benefits, and alternatives to research (or a proposed clinical intervention) and make a free, voluntary decision about whether to participate. Many participants have incomplete understanding of various features of clinical trials. Issues associated with the length, format, and language of documents for written informed consent are common. Here, we analyse the written consent form, particularly in the context of clinical research, and the discussions that take place between clinician or investigator and patient. We review strategies to improve consent forms, particularly the use of plain language. Recommendations are made on discussions between investigator and patient to improve participant comprehension and satisfaction with the informed-consent process.

Researching human oocyte cryopreservation: ethical issues

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate some ethical concerns related to the selection of participants for oocyte cryopreservation research.

DESIGN

Review of ethical issues related to human oocyte cryopreservation research.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

None.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

A discussion of some ethical concerns surrounding selection of participants for oocyte cryopreservation research.

RESULT(S)

Human oocyte cryopreservation has the potential to expand reproductive options for infertile couples. Care needs to be taken, however, to carefully select participants in ways that maximizes benefits to them and to society and minimizes risks. Infertility programs can do so by trying to recruit women who stand to benefit the most from participating in oocyte cryopreservation protocols.

CONCLUSION(S)

Biomedical research is necessary to improve current medical therapies. Oocyte cryopreservation can increase the flexibility of assisted reproductive programs and offer hope to a significant number of infertile couples. Nonetheless, scientific research cannot be attentive only to the creation of new knowledge and new technologies; it also is inextricably tied to ethical considerations about the well-being of participants.

Attitudes, understanding, and concerns regarding medical research amongst Egyptians: a qualitative pilot study

BACKGROUND

Medical research must involve the participation of human subjects. Knowledge of patients' perspectives and concerns with their involvement in research would enhance recruitment efforts, improve the informed consent process, and enhance the overall trust between patients and investigators. Several studies have examined the views of patients from Western countries. There is limited empirical research involving the perspectives of individuals from developing countries. The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes of Egyptian individuals toward medical research. Such information would help clarify the type and extent of concerns regarding research participation of individuals from cultural, economic, and political backgrounds that differ from those in developed countries.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 Egyptian individuals recruited from the outpatient settings (public and private) at Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt. Interviews were taped, transcribed, and translated. Thematic analysis followed.

RESULTS

All individuals valued the importance of medical research; however most would not participate in research that involved more than minimal risk. Individuals were comfortable with studies involving surveys and blood sampling, but many viewed drug trials as being too risky. All participants valued the concept of informed consent, as they thought that their permission to be in a research study was paramount. Many participants had discomfort with or difficulty in the understanding several research concepts: randomization, double-blind, and clinical equipoise. Trust in the physicians performing research was important in deciding to participate in clinical research. The small sample size and the selection bias associated with obtaining information from only those who agreed to participate in a research study represent limitations in this study.

CONCLUSION

Overall, individuals in our sample recognize the value of medical research and have a great deal of trust regarding medical research and their participation in research. There were, however, concerns with the level of research risks associated with several types of medical research. Many also demonstrated confusion with certain research methodologies. We recommend 1) enhanced educational efforts regarding general research concepts to enhance the validity of informed consent and 2) further survey studies in other areas of Egypt to determine the generalizability of our results.