Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: issues arising in establishing research collaborations

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 16: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods-Contrasting and Complementary Approaches

Qualitative methods have been increasingly applied in our literature, providing richness to data and incorporating the nuances of patient and family perspectives. These qualitative research techniques provide breadth and depth beyond what can be gleaned through quantitative methods alone. When both quantitative and qualitative approaches are coupled, their findings provide complementary information which can further substantiate study conclusions. We thus aim to provide insight into qualitative and quantitative methods in comparison and contrast to each other, as well as guidance on when each approach is most apt. In relation, we also describe mixed methods and the theory supporting their framework. In doing so, we provide the foundation for an ensuing, more detailed exposition of qualitative methods.

The MATE trial: a multicentre, mixed-methodology, pilot, randomised controlled trial in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

In healthcare research investigating complex interventions, gaps in understanding of processes can be filled by using qualitative methods alongside a quantitative approach. The aim of this mixed-methods pilot trial was to provide feasibility evidence comparing two treatment regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) to inform a future large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

Forty-four treatment-naïve nAMD patients were followed over 24 months and randomised to one of two treatment regimens: standard care (SC) or treat and extend (T&E). The primary objective evaluated feasibility of the MATE trial via evaluations of screening logs for recruitment rates, nonparticipation and screen fails, whilst qualitative in-depth interviews with key study staff evaluated the recruitment phase and running of the trial. The secondary objective assessed changes in visual acuity and central retinal thickness (CRT) between the two treatment arms.

RESULTS

The overall recruitment rate was 3.07 participants per month with a 40.8% non-participation rate, 18.51% screen-failure rate and 15% withdrawal/non-completion rate. Key themes in the recruitment phase included human factors, protocol-related issues, recruitment processes and challenges. Both treatment regimens showed a trend towards a visual acuity gain at month 12 which was not maintained at month 24, whilst CRT reduced similarly in both regimens over the same time period. These were achieved with one less treatment following a T&E regimen.

CONCLUSION

This mixed-methodology, pilot RCT achieved its pre-defined recruitment, nonparticipation and screen failure rates, thus deeming it a success. With some minor protocol amendments, progression to a large-scale RCT will be achievable.

Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls—to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment

Background

Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) struggle to recruit, despite valiant efforts. The QRI (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) uses innovative research methods to optimise recruitment by revealing previously hidden barriers related to the perceptions and experiences of recruiters and patients, and targeting remedial actions. It was designed to be integrated with RCTs anticipating difficulties at the outset. A new version of the intervention (QRI-Two) was developed for RCTs already underway with enrolment shortfalls.

Methods

QRIs in 12 RCTs with enrolment shortfalls during 2007–2017 were reviewed to document which of the research methods used could be rapidly applied to successfully identify recruitment barriers. These methods were then included in the new streamlined QRI-Two intervention which was applied in 20 RCTs in the USA and Europe during 2018–2019. The feasibility of the QRI-Two was investigated, recruitment barriers and proposed remedial actions were documented, and the QRI-Two protocol was finalised.

Results

The review of QRIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that previously unrecognised recruitment barriers could be identified but data collection for the full QRI required time and resources usually unavailable to ongoing RCTs. The streamlined QRI-Two focussed on analysis of screening/accrual data and RCT documents (protocol, patient-information), with discussion of newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions in a workshop with the RCT team. Four RCTs confirmed the feasibility of the rapid application of the QRI-Two. When the QRI-Two was applied to 14 RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, an array of previously unknown/underestimated recruitment barriers related to issues such as equipoise, intervention preferences, or study presentation was identified, with new insights into losses of eligible patients along the recruitment pathway. The QRI-Two workshop enabled discussion of the newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions to improve recruitment in collaboration with the RCT team. As expected, the QRI-Two performed less well in six RCTs at the start-up stage before commencing enrolment.

Conclusions

The QRI-Two can be applied rapidly, diagnose previously unrecognised recruitment barriers, and suggest remedial actions in RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, providing opportunities for RCT teams to develop targeted actions to improve recruitment. The effectiveness of the QRI-Two in improving recruitment requires further evaluation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06187-y.

Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with personalised hip therapy in people over 16 years old with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: UK FASHIoN RCT

BACKGROUND

Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery or with physiotherapist-led conservative care.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care.

DESIGN

The UK FASHIoN (full trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with non-operative care) trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial that was carried out at 23 NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were included if they had femoroacetabular impingement, were aged ≥ 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology (but no osteoarthritis) and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive hip arthroscopy followed by postoperative physiotherapy, or personalised hip therapy (i.e. an individualised physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre using a central telephone randomisation service. Outcome assessment and analysis were masked.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and July 2016, 648 eligible patients were identified and 348 participants were recruited. In total, 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 participants were allocated to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (N = 319; hip arthroscopy, n = 157; personalised hip therapy, n = 162). At 12 months, mean International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) score had improved from 39.2 (standard deviation 20.9) points to 58.8 (standard deviation 27.2) points for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35.6 (standard deviation 18.2) points to 49.7 (standard deviation 25.5) points for participants in personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in International Hip Outcome Tool scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline International Hip Outcome Tool score and centre, was 6.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.0) points in favour of hip arthroscopy (p = 0.0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6.1 points). Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment and one serious adverse event in the personalised hip therapy group was not. Thirty-eight (24%) personalised hip therapy patients chose to have hip arthroscopy between 1 and 3 years after randomisation. Nineteen (12%) hip arthroscopy patients had a revision arthroscopy. Eleven (7%) personalised hip therapy patients and three (2%) hip arthroscopy patients had a hip replacement within 3 years.

LIMITATIONS

Study participants and treating clinicians were not blinded to the intervention arm. Delays were encountered in participants accessing treatment, particularly surgery. Follow-up lasted for 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement in quality of life than personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant at 12 months. This study does not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with personalised hip therapy within the first 12 months. Further follow-up will reveal whether or not the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether or not it is cost-effective in the long term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64081839.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial comparing two surgical procedures for ankle arthritis : a qualitative study

Aims

A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial.

Methods

We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment.

Results

Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm.

Conclusion

This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637.

Barriers to recruitment, retention and intervention delivery in a randomized trial among patients with firearm injuries

BACKGROUND

We discuss barriers to recruitment, retention, and intervention delivery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients presenting with firearm injuries to a Level 1 trauma center. The intervention was adapted from the Critical Time Intervention and included a six-month period of support in the community after hospital discharge to address recovery goals. This study was one of the first RCTs of a hospital- and community-based intervention provided solely among patients with firearm injuries.

MAIN TEXT

Barriers to recruitment included limited staffing, coupled with wide variability in length of stay and admission times, which made it difficult to predict the best time to recruit. At the same time, more acutely affected patients needed more time to stabilize in order to determine whether eligibility criteria were met. Barriers to retention included insufficient patient resources for stable housing, communication and transportation, as well as limited time for patients to meet with study staff to respond to follow-up surveys. These barriers similarly affected intervention delivery as patients who were recruited, but had fewer resources to help with recovery, had lower intervention engagement. These barriers fall within the broader context of system avoidance (e.g., avoiding institutions that keep formal records). Since the patient sample was racially diverse with the majority of patients having prior criminal justice system involvement, this may have precluded active participation from some patients, especially those from communities that have been subject to long and sustained history of trauma and racism. We discuss approaches to overcoming these barriers and the importance of such efforts to further implement and evaluate hospital-based violence intervention programs in the future.

CONCLUSION

Developing strategies to overcome barriers to data collection and ongoing participant contact are essential to gathering robust information to understand how well violence prevention programs work and providing the best care possible for people recovering from injuries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02630225 . Registered 12/15/2015.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up.

SETTING

Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy.

TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy).

LIMITATIONS

A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms.

DESIGN

A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study.

SETTING

Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation.

INTERVENTIONS

Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study.

RESULTS

In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture.

DESIGN

We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation.

SETTING

Five NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa.

INTERVENTIONS

Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The randomisation of 80 men.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and 'tips' documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) - with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants - than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted.

FUTURE WORK

Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Intensive Triangulation of Qualitative Research and Quantitative Data to Improve Recruitment to Randomized Trials: The QuinteT Approach

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide high quality evidence about the comparative effectiveness of health care interventions, but many RCTs struggle with or fail to complete recruitment. RCTs are built on the principles of the experimental method, but their planning, conduct, and interpretation can depend on complex social, behavioral, and cultural factors that may be best understood through qualitative research. Most qualitative studies undertaken alongside RCTs involve interviews that produce data that are used in a supportive or supplicatory role, but there is potential for qualitative research to be more influential. In this article, we describe the research methods underpinning the "QuinteT" (Qualitative Research Integrated Within Trials) approach to understand and address RCT recruitment difficulties. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) brings together multiple qualitative strategies and quantitative data and uses triangulation to understand recruitment issues rapidly. These nuanced understandings are used to inform the implementation of collaborative actions to improve recruitment.

The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed.

Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation vs radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation vs Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate-risk unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

PART included a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment. Phase I aimed to understand recruitment, and included: scrutinising recruitment data, interviewing the trial management group and recruiters (n = 13), and audio-recording recruitment consultations (n = 64). Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. In Phase II, strategies to improve recruitment were developed and delivered.

RESULTS

Initially many recruiters found it difficult to maintain a position of equipoise and held preconceptions about which treatment was best for particular patients. They did not feel comfortable about approaching all eligible patients, and when the study was discussed, biases were conveyed through the use of terminology, poorly balanced information, and direct treatment recommendations. Individual and group feedback led to presentations to patients becoming clearer and enabled recruiters to reconsider their sense of equipoise. Although the precise impact of the QRI alone cannot be determined, recruitment increased (from a mean [range] of 1.4 [0-4] to 4.5 [0-12] patients/month) and the feasibility study reached its recruitment target.

CONCLUSION

Although clinicians find it challenging to recruit patients to a trial comparing different contemporary treatments for prostate cancer, training and support can enable recruiters to become more comfortable with conveying equipoise and providing clearer information to patients.

Qualitative analysis of feasibility of recruitment and retention in a planned randomised controlled trial of a psychosocial cancer intervention within the NHS

Background

The randomised control trial (RCT) is the most rigorous method of evaluating interventions. Recruitment is often slower and more challenging than expected. The aim of the current paper is to understand the feasibility of recruitment within the NHS and the barriers and motivators to recruitment from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

Methods

NHS HCPs were surveyed to establish their willingness to participate. Twenty HCPs were interviewed to establish barriers and motivators to recruitment. Eleven patients were interviewed to understand their willingness to participate. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

HCP interviews identified key barriers to recruitment: practical barriers included workload and time; clinical barriers included terminology and concern that the trial implied criticism of their current practice; and patient barriers included gender and cultural factors. Motivators to recruitment included: regular communication between research and clinical teams; feedback on findings; and patient and individual benefits for clinicians. Patient interviews suggested that participation in a trial of a psychosocial intervention would strengthen existing coping skills and develop mechanisms for those who were struggling.

Conclusions

Survey results demonstrated that recruitment to an RCT of a psychosocial intervention for people living with and beyond cancer would be feasible within the NHS if specific barriers are addressed. From a clinician point of view, barriers should be addressed to improve recruitment, particularly training and education of clinicians and clear communication. From a patient perspective, interventions and RCT should be tailored to target those not routinely represented in RCTs.

UK FASHIoN: feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with best conservative care

BACKGROUND

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a syndrome of hip or groin pain associated with shape abnormalities of the hip joint. Treatments include arthroscopic surgery and conservative care. This study explored the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to compare these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to estimate the number of patients available for a full randomised controlled trial (RCT); to explore clinician and patient willingness to participate in such a RCT; to develop consensus on eligibility criteria, surgical and best conservative care protocols; to examine possible outcome measures and estimate the sample size for a full RCT; and to develop trial procedures and estimate recruitment and follow-up rates.

METHODS

Pre-pilot work: we surveyed all UK NHS hospital trusts (n = 197) to identify all FAI surgeons and to estimate how much arthroscopic FAI surgery they performed. We interviewed a purposive sample of 18 patients, 36 physiotherapists, 18 surgeons and two sports physicians to explore attitudes towards a RCT and used consensus-building methods among them to develop treatment protocols and patient information. Pilot RCT: we performed a pilot RCT in 10 hospital trusts. Patients were randomised to receive either hip arthroscopy or best conservative care and then followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months using patient-reported questionnaires for hip pain and function, activity level, quality of life, and a resource-use questionnaire. Qualitative recruitment intervention: we performed semistructured interviews with all researchers and clinicians involved in the pilot RCT in eight hospital trusts and recorded and analysed diagnostic and recruitment consultations with eligible patients.

RESULTS

We identified 120 surgeons who reported treating at least 1908 patients with FAI by hip arthroscopy in the NHS in the financial year 2011/12. There were 34 hospital trusts that performed ≥ 20 arthroscopic FAI operations in the year. We found that clinicians were positive about a RCT: only half reported equipoise, but most said that they would be prepared to randomise patients. Patients strongly supported a RCT, but expressed concerns about its design; these were used to develop patient information for the pilot RCT. We developed a surgical protocol and showed that this could be used in a RCT. We developed a physiotherapy-led exercise-based package of best conservative care called 'personalised hip therapy' and showed that this was practicable. In the pilot RCT, we recruited 42 out of 60 eligible patients (70%) across nine sites. The mean duration and recruitment rate across all sites were 4.5 months and one patient per site per month, respectively. The lead site recruited for the longest period (9.3 months) and accrued the largest number of patients (2.1 patients per month). We recorded and analysed 84 diagnostic and recruitment consultations in 60 patients and used these to develop a model for an optimal recruitment consultation. We identified the International Hip Outcome Tool at 12 months as an appropriate outcome measure and estimated the sample size for a full trial as 344 participants: a number that could be recruited in 25 centres over 18 months.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that it is feasible to perform a RCT to establish the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with best conservative care for FAI. We have designed a full trial and developed and tested procedures for it, including an innovative approach to recruitment. We propose that a full trial be implemented.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery.

OBJECTIVES

The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches.

DESIGN

Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work.

SETTING

Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited.

RESULTS

During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions to improve retention in a surgical, clinical trial: A pragmatic, stakeholder-driven approach

OBJECTIVE

To explore stakeholder perspectives upon participant retention in clinical trials, and to generate strategies to support retention in a surgical, clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The SWIFFT trial is a multicenter study comparing treatments for the fracture of the waist of the scaphoid bone in adults. Here we report upon a multistage, iterative consultative process with SWIFFT stakeholders, these include workshops with members of the public, with nurses involved in data collection, and with consultant clinicians. Structured discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed, data were handled and analyzed following a framework approach to qualitative data analysis.

RESULTS

Removing practical barriers were identified as important factors in supporting retention. Stakeholders also identified that (i) how well a study is understood and (ii) how much it is valued are important factors in an individual's willingness to maintain their involvement. A number of strategies resulted from this consultation, these include: in-clinic data collection, co-ordinated clinical and research appointments, a SWIFFT website, and newsletter.

CONCLUSION

A participatory approach to trial retention might engage all relevant stakeholders in the delivery of a clinical trial, it might also support the generation of specific and contextually relevant solutions to the challenge of participant retention.

Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study

Background:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving surgical procedures are challenging for recruitment and infrequent in the specialty of bariatrics. The pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study (gastric bypass versus gastric band versus sleeve gastrectomy) provided the opportunity for an investigation of recruitment using a qualitative research integrated in trials (QuinteT) recruitment intervention (QRI).

Patients/Methods:

The QRI investigated recruitment in two centers in the pilot phase comparing bypass and banding, through the analysis of 12 in-depth staff interviews, 84 audio recordings of patient consultations, 19 non-participant observations of consultations and patient screening data. QRI findings were developed into a plan of action and fed back to centers to improve information provision and recruitment organization.

Results:

Recruitment proved to be extremely difficult with only two patients recruited during the first 2 months. The pivotal issue in Center A was that an effective and established clinical service could not easily adapt to the needs of the RCT. There was little scope to present RCT details or ensure efficient eligibility assessment, and recruiters struggled to convey equipoise. Following presentation of QRI findings, recruitment in Center A increased from 9% in the first 2 months (2/22) to 40% (26/65) in the 4 months thereafter. Center B, commencing recruitment 3 months after Center A, learnt from the emerging issues in Center A and set up a special clinic for trial recruitment. The trial successfully completed pilot recruitment and progressed to the main phase across 11 centers.

Conclusions:

The QRI identified key issues that enabled the integration of the trial into the clinical setting. This contributed to successful recruitment in the By-Band-Sleeve trial—currently the largest in bariatric practice—and offers opportunities to optimize recruitment in other trials in bariatrics.

OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the chemotherapy sensitivity of some oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancers. Multiparameter assays that measure the expression of several tumour genes simultaneously have been developed to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for this breast cancer subtype. The assays provide prognostic information and have been claimed to predict chemotherapy sensitivity. There is a dearth of prospective validation studies. The Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multiparameter Analysis preliminary study (OPTIMA prelim) is the feasibility phase of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to validate the use of multiparameter assay directed chemotherapy decisions in the NHS.

OBJECTIVES

OPTIMA prelim was designed to establish the acceptability to patients and clinicians of randomisation to test-driven treatment assignment compared with usual care and to select an assay for study in the main RCT.

DESIGN

Partially blinded RCT with adaptive design.

SETTING

Thirty-five UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 40 years with surgically treated ER-positive HER2-negative primary breast cancer and with 1-9 involved axillary nodes, or, if node negative, a tumour at least 30 mm in diameter.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomisation between two treatment options. Option 1 was standard care consisting of chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. In option 2, an Oncotype DX(®) test (Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) performed on the resected tumour was used to assign patients either to standard care [if 'recurrence score' (RS) was > 25] or to endocrine therapy alone (if RS was ≤ 25). Patients allocated chemotherapy were blind to their randomisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The pre-specified success criteria were recruitment of 300 patients in no longer than 2 years and, for the final 150 patients, (1) an acceptance rate of at least 40%; (2) recruitment taking no longer than 6 months; and (3) chemotherapy starting within 6 weeks of consent in at least 85% of patients.

RESULTS

Between September 2012 and 3 June 2014, 350 patients consented to join OPTIMA prelim and 313 were randomised; the final 150 patients were recruited in 6 months, of whom 92% assigned chemotherapy started treatment within 6 weeks. The acceptance rate for the 750 patients invited to participate was 47%. Twelve out of the 325 patients with data (3.7%, 95% confidence interval 1.7% to 5.8%) were deemed ineligible on central review of receptor status. Interviews with researchers and recordings of potential participant consultations made as part of the integral qualitative recruitment study provided insights into recruitment barriers and led to interventions designed to improve recruitment. Patient information was changed as the result of feedback from three patient focus groups. Additional multiparameter analysis was performed on 302 tumour samples. Although Oncotype DX, MammaPrint(®)/BluePrint(®) (Agendia Inc., Irvine, CA, USA), Prosigna(®) (NanoString Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), IHC4, IHC4 automated quantitative immunofluorescence (AQUA(®)) [NexCourse BreastTM (Genoptix Inc. Carlsbad, CA, USA)] and MammaTyper(®) (BioNTech Diagnostics GmbH, Mainz, Germany) categorised comparable numbers of tumours into low- or high-risk groups and/or equivalent molecular subtypes, there was only moderate agreement between tests at an individual tumour level (kappa ranges 0.33-0.60 and 0.39-0.55 for tests providing risks and subtypes, respectively). Health economics modelling showed the value of information to the NHS from further research into multiparameter testing is high irrespective of the test evaluated. Prosigna is currently the highest priority for further study.

CONCLUSIONS

OPTIMA prelim has achieved its aims of demonstrating that a large UK clinical trial of multiparameter assay-based selection of chemotherapy in hormone-sensitive early breast cancer is feasible. The economic analysis shows that a trial would be economically worthwhile for the NHS. Based on the outcome of the OPTIMA prelim, a large-scale RCT to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiparameter assay-directed chemotherapy decisions in hormone-sensitive HER2-negative early breast would be appropriate to take place in the NHS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42400492.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Government of Ontario funded research at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. Robert C Stein received additional support from the NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.

Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI)

Background

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered essential to determine effective interventions for routine clinical practice, but many fail to recruit participants efficiently, and some really important RCTs are not undertaken because recruitment is thought to be too difficult. The ‘QuinteT Recruitment Intervention’ (QRI) aims to facilitate informed decision making by patients about RCT participation and to increase recruitment. This paper presents the development and implementation of the QRI.

Methods

The QRI developed iteratively as a complex intervention. It emerged from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProtecT trial and has been developed further in 13 RCTs. The final version of the QRI uses a combination of standard and innovative qualitative research methods with some simple quantification to understand recruitment and identify sources of difficulties.

Results

The QRI has two major phases: understanding recruitment as it happens and then developing a plan of action to address identified difficulties and optimise informed consent in collaboration with the RCT chief investigator (CI) and the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU). The plan of action usually includes RCT-specific, as well as generic, aspects. The QRI can be used in two ways: it can be integrated into the feasibility/pilot or main phase of an RCT to prevent difficulties developing and optimise recruitment from the start, or it can be applied to an ongoing RCT experiencing recruitment shortfalls, with a view to rapidly improving recruitment and informed consent or gathering evidence to justify RCT closure.

Conclusions

The QRI provides a flexible way of understanding recruitment difficulties and producing a plan to address them while ensuring engaged and well-informed decision making by patients. It can facilitate recruitment to the most controversial and important RCTs. QRIs are likely to be of interest to the CIs and CTUs developing proposals for ‘difficult’ RCTs or for RCTs with lower than expected recruitment and to the funding bodies wishing to promote efficient recruitment in pragmatic RCTs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The feasibility of community level interventions for pre-eclampsia in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: a mixed-methods design

BACKGROUND

Globally, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are major contributors to maternal and perinatal mortality; of which the vast majority of deaths occur in less developed countries. In addition, a disproportionate number of morbidities and mortalities occur due to delayed access to health services. The Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) Trial aims to task-shift to community health workers the identification and emergency management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia to improve access and timely care. Literature revealed paucity of published feasibility assessments prior to initiating large-scale community-based interventions. Arguably, well-conducted feasibility studies can provide valuable information about the potential success of clinical trials prior to implementation. Failure to fully understand the study context risks the effective implementation of the intervention and limits the likelihood of post-trial scale-up. Therefore, it was imperative to conduct community-level feasibility assessments for a trial of this magnitude.

METHODS

A mixed methods design guided by normalization process theory was used for this study in Nigeria, Mozambique, Pakistan, and India to explore enabling and impeding factors for the CLIP Trial implementation. Qualitative data were collected through participant observation, document review, focus group discussion and in-depth interviews with diverse groups of community members, key informants at community level, healthcare providers, and policy makers. Quantitative data were collected through health facility assessments, self-administered community health worker surveys, and household demographic and health surveillance.

RESULTS

Refer to CLIP Trial feasibility publications in the current and/or forthcoming supplement.

CONCLUSIONS

Feasibility assessments for community level interventions, particularly those involving task-shifting across diverse regions, require an appropriate theoretical framework and careful selection of research methods. The use of qualitative and quantitative methods increased the data richness to better understand the community contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01911494.

Why so many "rigorous" evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute

Many widely-used impact evaluation designs, including randomized control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs (QEDs), frequently fail to detect what are often quite serious unintended consequences of development programs. This seems surprising as experienced planners and evaluators are well aware that unintended consequences frequently occur. Most evaluation designs are intended to determine whether there is credible evidence (statistical, theory-based or narrative) that programs have achieved their intended objectives and the logic of many evaluation designs, even those that are considered the most "rigorous," does not permit the identification of outcomes that were not specified in the program design. We take the example of RCTs as they are considered by many to be the most rigorous evaluation designs. We present a numbers of cases to illustrate how infusing RCTs with a mixed-methods approach (sometimes called an "RCT+" design) can strengthen the credibility of these designs and can also capture important unintended consequences. We provide a Mixed Methods Evaluation Framework that identifies 9 ways in which UCs can occur, and we apply this framework to two of the case studies.

A new simple six-step model to promote recruitment to RCTs was developed and successfully implemented

OBJECTIVES

How a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is explained to patients is a key determinant of recruitment to that trial. This study developed and implemented a simple six-step model to fully inform patients and to support them in deciding whether to take part or not.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Ninety-two consultations with 60 new patients were recorded and analyzed during a pilot RCT comparing surgical and nonsurgical interventions for hip impingement. Recordings were analyzed using techniques of thematic analysis and focused conversation analysis.

RESULTS

Early findings supported the development of a simple six-step model to provide a framework for good recruitment practice. Model steps are as follows: (1) explain the condition, (2) reassure patients about receiving treatment, (3) establish uncertainty, (4) explain the study purpose, (5) give a balanced view of treatments, and (6) Explain study procedures. There are also two elements throughout the consultation: (1) responding to patients' concerns and (2) showing confidence. The pilot study was successful, with 70% (n = 60) of patients approached across nine centers agreeing to take part in the RCT, so that the full-scale trial was funded.

CONCLUSION

The six-step model provides a promising framework for successful recruitment to RCTs. Further testing of the model is now required.

Passing the baton: Community-based ethnography to design a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among Black men who have sex with men

Although HIV interventions and clinical trials increasingly report the use of mixed methods, studies have not reported on the process through which ethnographic or qualitative findings are incorporated into RCT designs. We conducted a community-based ethnography on social and structural factors that may affect the acceptance of and adherence to oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among Black men who have sex with men (BMSM). We then devised the treatment arm of an adherence clinical trial drawing on findings from the community-based ethnography. This article describes how ethnographic findings informed the RCT and identifies distilled themes and findings that could be included as part of an RCT. The enhanced intervention includes in-person support groups, online support groups, peer navigation, and text message reminders. By describing key process-related facilitators and barriers to conducting meaningful mixed methods research, we provide important insights for the practice of designing clinical trials for 'real-world' community settings.

A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often difficult. Clinician related factors have been implicated as important reasons for low rates of recruitment. Clinicians (doctors and other health professionals) can experience discomfort with some underlying principles of RCTs and experience difficulties in conveying them positively to potential trial participants. Recruiter training has been suggested to address identified problems but a synthesis of this research is lacking. The aim of our study was to systematically review the available evidence on training interventions for recruiters to randomised trials.

METHODS

Studies that evaluated training programmes for trial recruiters were included. Those that provided only general communication training not linked to RCT recruitment were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two reviewers independently, with a third author where necessary.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies of 9615 potentially eligible titles and abstracts were included in the review: three randomised controlled studies, two non-randomised controlled studies, nine uncontrolled pre-test/post-test studies, two qualitative studies, and a post-training questionnaire survey. Most studies were of moderate or weak quality. Training programmes were mostly set within cancer trials, and usually consisted of workshops with a mix of health professionals over one or two consecutive days covering generic and trial specific issues. Recruiter training programmes were well received and some increased recruiters' self-confidence in communicating key RCT concepts to patients. There was, however, little evidence that this training increased actual recruitment rates or patient understanding, satisfaction, or levels of informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to develop recruiter training programmes that can lead to improved recruitment and informed consent in randomised trials.

The CSAW Study (Can Shoulder Arthroscopy Work?) - a placebo-controlled surgical intervention trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression for shoulder pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASAD) is a commonly performed surgical intervention for shoulder pain. The rationale is that removal of a bony acromial spur relieves symptoms by decompressing rotator cuff tendons passing through the subacromial space. However, the efficacy of this procedure is uncertain. The objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ASAD in patients with subacromial pain using appropriate control groups, including placebo intervention.

Methods/Design

The trial is a three-group, parallel design, pragmatic, randomised controlled study. The intervention content for each group (ASAD, active monitoring with specialist reassessment (AMSR) and investigational shoulder arthroscopy only (AO)) enables assessment of (1) the efficacy of the surgery against no surgery; (2) the need for a specific component of the surgery—namely, removal of the bony spur; and (3) quantification of the placebo effect. Concealed allocation was performed using a 1:1:1 randomisation ratio and using age, sex, baseline Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and centre as minimisation criteria. The primary outcome measure is the OSS at 6 months post randomisation. A total of 300 patients recruited over 24 months from a minimum of 14 UK shoulder units over 24 months were required to detect a difference of 4.5 points on the OSS (standard deviation, 9) with 90% power and to allow for 15% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, pain, complications and patient satisfaction. A substantial qualitative research component is included. The primary analysis will be conducted on the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Sensitivity analysis will be used to assess the robustness of the results with regard to the underlying assumptions about missing data using multiple imputation.

Discussion

This trial uses an innovative design to account for the known placebo effects of surgery, but it also will delineate the mechanism for any benefit from surgery. The investigational AO group is considered a placebo intervention (not sham surgery), as it includes all components of subacromial decompression except the critical surgical element. Some discussion is also dedicated to the challenges of conducting placebo surgery trials.

Trial registrations

UK Clinical Research Network UKCRN12104. Registered 22 May 2012.

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN33864128. Registered 22 June 2012.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01623011. Registered 15 June 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0725-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer--the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a need for evidence of the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but randomized controlled trials in surgery are often difficult to conduct. The ROMIO (Randomized Open or Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy) study will establish the feasibility of a main trial which will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive and open surgical procedures for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

METHODS/DESIGN

A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), in two centers (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust) will examine numbers of incident and eligible patients who consent to participate in the ROMIO study. Interventions will include esophagectomy by: (1) open gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, (2) laparoscopic gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, and (3) totally minimally invasive surgery (in the Bristol center only). The primary outcomes of the feasibility study will be measures of recruitment, successful development of methods to monitor quality of surgery and fidelity to a surgical protocol, and development of a core outcome set to evaluate esophageal cancer surgery. The study will test patient-reported outcomes measures to assess recovery, methods to blind participants, assessments of surgical morbidity, and methods to capture cost and resource use. ROMIO will integrate methods to monitor and improve recruitment using audio recordings of consultations between recruiting surgeons, nurses, and patients to provide feedback for recruiting staff.

DISCUSSION

The ROMIO study aims to establish efficient methods to undertake a main trial of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for esophageal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The pilot trial has Current Controlled Trials registration number ISRCTN59036820(25/02/2013) at http://www.controlled-trials.com; the ROMIO trial record at that site gives a link to the original version of the study protocol.

The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of the study was to investigate how doctors considered and experienced the concept of equipoise while recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Study Design and Setting

In-depth interviews with 32 doctors in six publicly funded pragmatic RCTs explored their perceptions of equipoise as they undertook RCT recruitment. The RCTs varied in size, duration, type of complex intervention, and clinical specialties. Interview data were analyzed using qualitative content and thematic analytical methods derived from grounded theory and synthesized across six RCTs.

Results

All six RCTs suffered from poor recruitment. Doctors wanted to gather robust evidence but experienced considerable discomfort and emotion in relation to their clinical instincts and concerns about patient eligibility and safety. Although they relied on a sense of community equipoise to justify participation, most acknowledged having “hunches” about particular treatments and patients, some of which undermined recruitment. Surgeons experienced these issues most intensely. Training and support promoted greater confidence in equipoise and improved engagement and recruitment.

Conclusion

Recruitment to RCTs is a fragile process and difficult for doctors intellectually and emotionally. Training and support can enable most doctors to become comfortable with key RCT concepts including equipoise, uncertainty, patient eligibility, and randomization, promoting a more resilient recruitment process in partnership with patients.

Development and impact of an intervention to boost recruitment in a multicenter pediatric randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to develop and evaluate an intervention to increase recruitment in a multicenter pediatric randomized clinical trial (RCT). Our secondary objective was to assess the impact beyond 120 days.

METHODS

The study was conducted at 17 academic centers participating in a pediatric RCT. The intervention consisted of utilizing a recruitment assessment tool at a site visit or teleconference with key site personnel.

RESULTS

We found a significant increase in the number of individuals enrolled for all 17 sites at 120 days postintervention (mean = 1.12 per site; median = 1 per site; 95% confidence interval = 1-2; P = .04). No significant differences were apparent beyond the first 120 days postintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful recruitment in RCTs is essential to the quality, generalizability, and cost-effectiveness of clinical research. Implementation of this recruitment intervention may effectively increase recruitment in RCTs. Beyond the first 120 days postintervention, repeated interventions may be required. What is new? Despite general and pediatric-specific challenges to recruitment in RCTs, a paucity of evidence exists on effective recruitment strategies or assessment tools to reliably enhance recruitment. We developed a recruitment intervention for use in RCTs that enables clinical researchers to enhance recruitment.

Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials

Background

Recruitment of sufficient participants in an efficient manner is still widely acknowledged to be a major challenge to the mounting and completion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Few recruitment interventions have involved staff undertaking recruitment. This study aimed i) to understand the recruitment process from the perspective of recruiters actively recruiting RCT participants in six pragmatic RCTs, and ii) to identify opportunities for interventions to improve recruitment.

Methods

Interviews were undertaken with 72 individuals (32 doctors or RCT Chief investigators (CIs); 40 nurses/other health professionals) who were actively recruiting participants in six RCTs to explore their experiences of recruitment. The RCTs varied in scale, duration, and clinical contexts. Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using qualitative content and thematic analytic methods derived from grounded theory. For this analysis, data were systematically extracted from each RCT and synthesised across all six RCTs to produce a detailed and nuanced understanding of the recruitment process from the perspectives of the recruiters.

Results

Recruiters readily identified organisational difficulties, fewer than expected eligible patients, and patients’ treatment preferences as the key barriers to recruitment. As they described their experiences of recruitment, several previously hidden issues related to their roles as researchers and clinicians emerged, imbued with discomfort and emotion. The synthesis across the RCTs showed that doctors were uncomfortable about aspects of patient eligibility and the effectiveness of interventions, whereas nurses were anxious about approaching potential RCT participants and conflicts between the research and their clinical responsibilities. Recruiters seemed unaware that their views contributed to recruitment difficulties. Their views were not known to RCT CIs. Training and support needs were identified for both groups of staff.

Conclusions

The synthesis showed that recruitment to these RCTs was a complex and fragile process. Clear obstacles were identified but hidden challenges related to recruiters’ roles undermined recruitment, unbeknown to RCT CIs. Qualitative research can elicit and identify the hidden challenges. Training and support are then needed for recruiters to become more comfortable with the design and principles of RCTs, so that they can engage more openly with potentially eligible participants and create a more resilient recruitment process.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

The recruitment of patients to trials in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study of the EaStER trial of treatments for early laryngeal cancer

We aimed to investigate the factors contributing to poor recruitment to the EaStER trial "Early Stage glottic cancer: Endoscopic excision or Radiotherapy" feasibility study. We performed a prospective qualitative assessment of the EaStER trial at three centres to investigate barriers to recruitment and implement changes. Methods used included semi-structured interviews, focus groups and audio-recordings of recruitment encounters. First, surgeons and recruiters did not all accept the primary outcome as the rationale for the trial. Surgeons did not always adhere to the trial eligibility criteria leading to variations between centres in the numbers of "eligible" patients. Second, as both treatments were considered equally successful, recruiters and patients focused on the pragmatics of the different trial arms, favouring surgery over radiotherapy. The lack of equipoise was reflected in the way recruiters presented trial information. Third, patient views, beliefs and preferences were not fully elicited or addressed by recruiters. Fourth, in some centres, logistical issues made trial participation difficult. This qualitative research identified several major issues that explained recruitment difficulties. While there was insufficient time to address these in the EaStER trial, several factors would need to be addressed to launch further RCTs in head and neck cancer. These include the need for clear ongoing agreement among recruiting clinicians regarding details in the study protocol; an understanding of the logistical issues hindering recruitment at individual centres; and training recruiters to enable them to explain the need for randomisation and the rationale for the RCT to patients.

Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

BACKGROUND

Research is fundamental to improving the quality of health care. The need for regulation of research is clear. However, the bureaucratic complexity of research governance has raised concerns that the regulatory mechanisms intended to protect participants now threaten to undermine or stifle the research enterprise, especially as this relates to sensitive topics and hard to reach groups.

DISCUSSION

Much criticism of research governance has focused on long delays in obtaining ethical approvals, restrictions imposed on study conduct, and the inappropriateness of evaluating qualitative studies within the methodological and risk assessment frameworks applied to biomedical and clinical research. Less attention has been given to the different epistemologies underlying biomedical and qualitative investigation. The bioethical framework underpinning current regulatory structures is fundamentally at odds with the practice of emergent, negotiated micro-ethics required in qualitative research. The complex and shifting nature of real world settings delivers unanticipated ethical issues and (occasionally) genuine dilemmas which go beyond easy or formulaic 'procedural' resolution. This is not to say that qualitative studies are 'unethical' but that their ethical nature can only be safeguarded through the practice of 'micro-ethics' based on the judgement and integrity of researchers in the field.

SUMMARY

This paper considers the implications of contrasting ethical paradigms for the conduct of qualitative research and the value of 'empirical ethics' as a means of liberating qualitative (and other) research from an outmoded and unduly restrictive research governance framework based on abstract prinicipalism, divorced from real world contexts and values.

Qualitative research in evidence-based medicine: improving decision-making and participation in randomized controlled trials of cancer treatments

BACKGROUND

Since the 1990s there has been increasing emphasis on 'evidence-based medicine'. The randomized controlled trial is widely regarded as the 'gold-standard' study design for evaluating interventions. However, placing too strong an emphasis on a phase III trial, to the neglect of earlier development and piloting work, may result in weaker interventions that are more difficult to evaluate and less likely to be implemented.

AIM

To illustrate the benefits and outcomes of qualitative research at the early stages of the research continuum.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Two cancer studies are evaluated in which the best treatment option is uncertain: ASPECTS (A Study of Patients ExperienCes of TreatmentS) and ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment).

DESIGN

To examine decision-making in relation to palliative chemotherapy for advanced cancer, ASPECTS was a qualitative study involving non-participant observation and recording of oncology consultations. During the ProtecT feasibility study, recruitment interviews were routinely audiotaped and in-depth interviews conducted with men to explore their understanding of treatment options and randomization to trial arms.

RESULTS

ASPECTS identified that insufficient information was given to patients about the survival benefits of palliative chemotherapy with implications for informed consent. ProtecT illustrated the effective use of qualitative research methods to resolve recruitment and randomization problems for a randomized controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies illustrate the value of qualitative research, particularly during the earlier phases of the research continuum. Such research may generate hypotheses, strengthen the development and implementation of interventions and enhance their evaluation: all of which are essential to evidence-based medicine.

Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011)

Background

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with very different treatment arms is often difficult. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) study successfully used qualitative research methods to improve recruitment and these methods were replicated in five other RCTs facing recruitment difficulties. A similar qualitative recruitment investigation was undertaken in the SPARE (Selective bladder Preservation Against Radical Excision) feasibility study to explore reasons for low recruitment and attempt to improve recruitment rates by implementing changes suggested by qualitative findings.

Methods

In Phase I of the investigation, reasons for low levels of recruitment were explored through content analysis of RCT documents, thematic analysis of interviews with trial staff and recruiters, and conversation analysis of audio-recordings of recruitment appointments. Findings were presented to the trial management group and a plan of action was agreed. In Phase II, changes to design and conduct were implemented, with training and feedback provided for recruitment staff.

Results

Five key challenges to trial recruitment were identified in Phase I: (a) Investigators and recruiters had considerable difficulty articulating the trial design in simple terms; (b) The recruitment pathway was complicated, involving staff across different specialties/centres and communication often broke down; (c) Recruiters inadvertently used 'loaded' terminology such as 'gold standard' in study information, leading to unbalanced presentation; (d) Fewer eligible patients were identified than had been anticipated; (e) Strong treatment preferences were expressed by potential participants and trial staff in some centres. In Phase II, study information (patient information sheet and flowchart) was simplified, the recruitment pathway was focused around lead recruiters, and training sessions and 'tips' were provided for recruiters. Issues of patient eligibility were insurmountable, however, and the independent Trial Steering Committee advised closure of the SPARE trial in February 2010.

Conclusions

The qualitative investigation identified the key aspects of trial design and conduct that were hindering recruitment, and a plan of action that was acceptable to trial investigators and recruiters was implemented. Qualitative investigations can thus be used to elucidate challenges to recruitment in trials with very different treatment arms, but require sufficient time to be undertaken successfully.

Trial Registration

CRUK/07/011; ISRCTN61126465

Qualitative research on health communication: what can it contribute?

OBJECTIVE

To contribute to the debate about the value of qualitative research in health care by discussing three key issues in relation to qualitative research on health communication.

METHODS

As this paper does not report the results of a primary research study or a secondary analysis, no formal search strategy was employed to identify the cited papers; many other published papers would have made the same points just as well.

RESULTS

The key issues are illustrated using a range of published studies drawn from the health care communication literature. The paper describes the range of outputs generated by qualitative research; illustrates different ways in which qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined; and shows the contribution of qualitative syntheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater conceptual development and explanatory power may be achieved both by more ambitious primary studies and the conduct of more qualitative syntheses. The synthesis of qualitative research also offers the opportunity to build up a cumulative evidence base.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The further development of methods of qualitative synthesis will be enhanced if qualitative researchers place greater emphasis on explanation rather than description; cite each other's work more often and conduct more syntheses; and continue to contribute to mixed methods studies.

A Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance

OBJECTIVE

Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines emphasize trial site monitoring, although the implementation is unspecified and evidence for benefit is sparse. We aimed to develop a site monitoring process using peer reviewers to improve staff training, site performance, data collection, and GCP compliance.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) team observed and gave feedback on trial recruitment and follow-up appointments, held staff meetings, and examined documentation during annual 2-day site visits. The intervention was evaluated in the ProtecT trial, a UK randomized controlled trial of localized prostate cancer treatments (ISRCTN20141297). The ProtecT coordinator and senior nurses conducted three monitoring rounds at eight sites (2004-2007). The process evaluation used PRIME report findings, trial databases, resource use, and a site nurse survey.

RESULTS

Adverse findings decreased across all sites from 44 in round 1 to 19 in round 3. Most findings related to protocol adherence or site organizational issues, including improvements in eligibility criteria application and data collection. Staff found site monitoring acceptable and made changes after reviews.

CONCLUSION

The PRIME process used observation by peer reviewers to improve protocol adherence and train site staff, which increased trial performance and consistency.

Prospective evaluation of two recruitment strategies for a randomized controlled cancer prevention trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate two recruitment strategies used during the full-scale randomized, placebo-controlled Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) at one clinical center.

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of participants to cancer prevention trials is challenging and costly and more efficient methods are needed.

METHODS

SELECT participants were males ≥60 years old who were solicited with two recruitment strategies. In the control strategy, potential participants, identified through purchased mailing lists, were sent a SELECT invitation letter. In the 'spouse' strategy, letters were sent to married postmenopausal women already participating in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) at our clinical center asking them to provide an enclosed SELECT invitation letter (identical to the one in the control strategy) to the 'man in her life'. Our hypothesis was that SELECT recruitment of men would be enhanced by this indirect mailing to their spouses already participating in a similar program.

RESULTS

In the control strategy, 183,315 invitation letters were mailed to 60,000 men; cumulative response was 2.16%; 600 men ultimately enrolled in SELECT (15.1% of respondents) for a mailing recruitment cost of $259 per participant. In the spouse strategy, 800 women participating in WHI clinical studies had husbands; of the 2214 invitation letters mailed to this group of women, cumulative response was 2.75%; 34 men ultimately enrolled in SELECT (55.7% of respondents) for a mailing recruitment cost of $59 per participant.

LIMITATION

Process information on how invitation letters were handled in the spouse strategy was not collected.

CONCLUSION

A direct mail recruitment strategy was successful in recruiting men to a cancer prevention trial. A recruitment strategy involving indirect mailing to married women participating in a similar research program in the same center did not increase initial response substantially, but a higher proportion of respondents ultimately entered the prevention trial.

Can patient-provider interaction increase the effectiveness of medical treatment or even substitute it?--an exploration on why and how to study the specific effect of the provider

OBJECTIVE

Numerous studies demonstrate the impact of high-quality patient-provider interaction (PPI) on health outcomes. However, transformation of these findings into clinical practice is still a crucial problem. One reason might be that health communication research rarely investigated whether PPI can increase the effectiveness of medical treatment and/or even substitute it. Therefore, our objective was to provide empirical and methodological background of why and how to investigate the specific effect of the provider on patients' health outcomes.

METHODS

This is a debate paper based on a narrative (non-systematic) literature review in Medline and PsycINFO without any year limitation.

RESULTS

Neurobiological evidence based on expectation and conditioning theory indicates that PPI is able to increase the effectiveness of medical treatment. Moreover, the use of creative RCT study designs described in this paper enables health communication researchers to investigate whether PPI is able to substitute medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

This paper exemplifies that there exist an evidence-based knowledge from neurobiology as well as creative RCT designs which enable researcher to investigate the specific effects of PPI.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research on the specific effects of PPI requires intense reflection on which patient groups or types of illness are reasonable, suitable, and ethically justifiable for interventions.

Marketing therapeutic precision: Potential facilitators and barriers to adoption of n-of-1 trials

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trials may enhance therapeutic precision by predicting the long-term effectiveness of medical treatment on an individual basis. However, the n-of-1 approach has gained little traction with the clinical community. To learn why, we interviewed physicians and patients, focusing on the perceived benefits and drawbacks of n-of-1 trials and factors influencing these perceptions.

METHODS

We convened focus groups and individual interviews with 21 physicians and 32 patients, most with chronic conditions. The study employed qualitative interview methods to explore and analyze subjects' views of n-of-1 trials. Analysis involved an iterative process of review and data abstraction after specific topics for coding, definitions of codes, and strategies for abstraction had been established. Previously defined domains and topics were then expanded and enriched, with key themes emerging during the analytic process.

RESULTS

Physicians and patients remarked on 4 salient aspects of n-of-1 trials: scientific, relational, clinical, and logistical. Neither physicians nor patients were highly familiar with the n-of-1 concept, but both groups readily grasped the fundamental logic and appreciated the potential scientific benefits. Physicians saw n-of-1 trials as promoting an exciting but possibly threatening paradigm shift in the doctor-patient relationship, while patients viewed the relational consequences as modest. The best n-of-1 candidates were felt to be proactive, cognitively intact, reliable, motivated, and engaged in a trusting physician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers interested in expanding the appeal of n-of-1 trials will need to address these concerns by carefully explaining the approach, emphasizing the benefits, and minimizing the effort required of doctors and patients.

It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodology for determining effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Poor recruitment to RCTs can threaten external validity and waste resources. An inherent tension exists between safeguarding informed decision-making by participants and maximising numbers enrolled. This study investigated what occurs during informed consent appointments in an ongoing multi-centre RCT in the UK. Objectives were to investigate: 1] how study staff presented study information to participants; 2] what evidence emerged as to how well-informed participants were when proceeding to randomisation or treatment selection; and 3] what aspects of the communication process may facilitate improvements in providing evidence of informed consent. Qualitative analysis of a purposive sample of 23 recruitment appointments from three study centres and involving several recruitment staff applied techniques of thematic, content and conversation analysis (CA). Thematic analysis and CA revealed variation in appointment content and structure. Appointments were mostly recruiter-led or participant-led, and this structure was associated with what evidence emerged as to how participants understood information provided and whether they were in equipoise. Participant-led appointments provided this evidence more consistently. Detailed CA identified communication techniques which, when employed by recruiters, provided evidence as to how participants understood the choices before them. Strategic use of open questions, pauses and ceding the floor in the interaction facilitated detailed and systematic exploration of each participant's concerns and position regarding equipoise. We conclude that the current focus on content to be provided to achieve informed consent should be broadened to encompass consideration of how information is best conveyed to potential participants. A model of tailored information provision using the communication techniques identified and centred on eliciting and addressing participants' concerns is proposed. Use of these techniques is necessary to make potential participants' understanding of key issues and their position regarding equipoise explicit in order to facilitate truly informed consent.