Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial

Background

Clinical trials face major barriers such as under-enrollment and selective enrollment, which threaten study completion and undermine validity and generalizability. Thus, we conducted a prospective preference assessment (PPA) prior to commencing the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial—a randomized controlled study comparing the outcomes of managing acute postoperative pain between opioid-sparing and opioid-based therapies. This PPA aimed to (1) determine the patients’ willingness to participate in the CARES trial, (2) identify the areas for improvement, and (3) assess the differences between willing and unwilling patients.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were recruited between August 2019 and February 2020 from two academic hospitals. A survey was administered to each patient consisting of (1) a vignette describing the trial, (2) an assessment of the patients’ understanding of the trial, (3) open-ended questions assessing the attitudes towards the trial, and (4) patient-completed questionnaires. Data were analyzed qualitatively with thematic analysis and quantitatively with the Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests.

Results

Forty-two patients were enrolled and grouped based on the 6-point Likert scale into willing (4–6, 71%) and not willing (1–3, 29%) to participate in the CARES trial. There were no significant differences with respect to all variables: age, education, sex, visible minority status, previous research, previous surgery, regular use of pain medications, surgical concerns, previous discussions on pain management, significant pain within the past 3 months, and significant use of pain medication within the past month. Factors that motivated participation were contributing to scientific research (45%), altruism (29%), and improving personal pain (24%). Common discouraging factors were negative perceptions of opioids (29%), side effects (21%), being blinded to the study medication (21%), and poor pain management (19%).

Conclusions

This PPA revealed that two key discouraging factors for patients were being blinded to the type of pain medication being taken and the potential for poor pain management as a consequence of participation. Modifications to improve patient acceptance of the CARES trial include ensuring sufficient rescue medicine and follow-up visits consistent with current standards of care for all patients, as well as patient education surrounding safe administration and side effects of the study medications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06123-0.

Achieving higher performing primary care through patient registration: A review of twelve high-income countries

BACKGROUND

Patient registration with a primary care providers supports continuity in the patient-provider relationship. This paper develops a framework for analysing the characteristics of patient registration across countries; applies this framework to a selection of countries; and identifies challenges and ongoing reform efforts.

METHODS

12 jurisdictions (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Ontario [Canada], Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) were selected for analysis. Information was collected by national researchers who reviewed relevant literature and policy documents to report on the establishment and evolution of patient registration, the requirements and benefits for patients, providers and payers, and its connection to primary care reforms.

RESULTS

Patient registration emerged as part of major macro-level health reforms linked to the introduction of universal health coverage. Recent reforms introduced registration with the aim of improving quality through better coordination and efficiency through reductions in unnecessary referrals. Patient registration is mandatory only in three countries. Several countries achieve high levels of registration by using strong incentives for patients and physicians (capitation payments).

CONCLUSION

Patient registration means different things in different countries and policy-makers and researchers need to take into consideration: the history and characteristics of the registration system; the use of incentives for patients and providers; and the potential for more explicit use of patient-provider agreements as a policy to achieve more timely, appropriate, continuous and integrated care.