Using decision aids may improve informed consent for research

Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis

While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitment. Although this approach is promising, the use of behavioral influences during recruitment is in tension with the ethical principle of respect for persons, as at least some of these influences could be used to manipulate potential participants. In this paper, we examine this tension by discussing two types of behavioral influences: one example involves physician recommendations, and the other involves framing of information to exploit cognitive biases. We argue that despite the apparent tension with ethical principles, influencing trial participants through behavior change strategies can be ethically acceptable. However, we argue that trialists have a positive obligation to analyze their recruitment strategies for behavioral influences and disclose these upfront to the research ethics committee. But we also acknowledge that since neither trialists nor ethics committees are presently well equipped to perform these analyses, additional resources and guidance are needed. We close by outlining a path toward the development of such guidance.

[Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]

Clinical studies can be more or less transparent in four areas: (a) study registration, (b) results reporting, (c) data/code sharing, and (d) study-related documents. This discussion paper explains the extent to which the EU Regulation 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation - CTR) has already positively impacted the area of results reporting in interventional drug trials and how it can improve the availability of study-related documents for independent research in the future.As this positive trend exists only for the area of results reporting and for the subset of interventional drug trials addressed by the CTR so far, a problematic two-class transparency seems to be developing that distinguishes between clinical studies addressed by the CTR and the other clinical studies. Independently of the CTR, academic institutions, funders, and ethics committees should therefore address all four abovementioned areas of transparency in all clinical studies. Monitoring the implementation of transparency in clinical studies would be an important first step in order to specify the need for action. An innovation in the context of transparency of clinical trials could also arise from the fact that the new EU Portal Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) according to the CTR makes study-related informed consent documents, study protocols, and the investigator's brochures more transparent. This would for the first time open up the opportunity of independent research and quality assurance on issues of informed consent and harm-benefit assessment in clinical research.

Conducting epigenetics research with refugees and asylum seekers: attending to the ethical challenges

An increase in global violence has forced the displacement of more than 70 million people, including 26 million refugees and 3.5 asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers face serious socioeconomic and healthcare barriers and are therefore particularly vulnerable to physical and mental health risks, which are sometimes exacerbated by immigration policies and local social discriminations. Calls for a strong evidence base for humanitarian action have encouraged conducting research to address the barriers and needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the role of epigenetics factors to mediate the effect of psychological and environmental exposures, epigenetic modifications have been used as biomarkers for life adversity and disease states. Therefore, epigenetic research can be potentially beneficial to address some of the issues associated with refugees and asylum seekers. Here, we review the value of previous and ongoing epigenetic studies with traumatized populations, explore some of the ethical challenges associated with epigenetic research with refugees and asylees and offer suggestions to address or mitigate some of these challenges. Researchers have an ethical responsibility to implement strategies to minimize the harms and maximize the short and long-term benefits to refugee and asylee participants.

Using behavioral theory and shared decision-making to understand clinical trial recruitment: interviews with trial recruiters

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial recruitment is a continuing challenge for medical researchers. Previous efforts to improve study recruitment have rarely been informed by theories of human decision making and behavior change. We investigate the trial recruitment strategies reported by study recruiters, guided by two influential theoretical frameworks: shared decision-making (SDM) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in order to explore the utility of these frameworks in trial recruitment.

METHODS

We interviewed all nine active study recruiters from a multi-site, open-label pilot trial assessing the feasibility of a large-scale randomized trial. Recruiters were primarily nurses or master's-level research assistants with a range of 3 to 30 years of experience. The semi-structured interviews included questions about the typical recruitment encounter, questions concerning the main components of SDM (e.g. verifying understanding, directive vs. non-directive style), and questions investigating the barriers to and drivers of their recruitment activities, based on the TDF. We used directed content analysis to code quotations into TDF domains, followed by inductive thematic analysis to code quotations into sub-themes within domains and overarching themes across TDF domains. Responses to questions related to SDM were aggregated according to level of endorsement and informed the thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis helped to identify 28 sub-themes across 11 domains. The sub-themes were organized into six overarching themes: coordinating between people, providing guidance to recruiters about challenges, providing resources to recruiters, optimizing study flow, guiding the recruitment decision, and emphasizing the benefits to participation. The SDM analysis revealed recruiters were able to view recruitment interactions as successful even when enrollment did not proceed, and most recruiters took a non-directive (i.e. providing patients with balanced information on available options) or mixed approach over a directive approach (i.e. focus on enrolling patient in study). Most of the core SDM constructs were frequently endorsed.

CONCLUSIONS

Identified sub-themes can be linked to TDF domains for which effective behavior change interventions are known, yielding interventions that can be evaluated as to whether they improve recruitment. Despite having no formal training in shared decision-making, study recruiters reported practices consistent with many elements of SDM. The development of SDM training materials specific to trial recruitment could improve the informed decision-making process for patients.

Effectiveness of participant recruitment strategies for critical care trials: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Critical care trials are limited by problems with participant recruitment, and little is known about the most effective ways to enhance trial participation. Despite clinical research improving in the past decades within intensive care, participant recruitment remains a challenge. Not all eligible patients are identified, and opportunities for enrolment into clinical trials are often missed. Interventions to facilitate recruitment need to be identified to improve trial conduct in the critical care environment. Therefore, we aimed to establish the effectiveness of recruitment strategies in critical care trials in order to inform future research practice.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for English language papers from inception to February 2020. The objectives were to: (1) establish the effectiveness of recruitment strategies and (2) recommend how effective recruitment strategies can inform research practice. Two reviewers independently assessed papers for inclusion and critically appraised the quality of the studies. Discrepancies were discussed within the research team. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded into five overarching themes using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019160519).

RESULTS

The search resulted in 2509 initially identified articles, with 15 that met the inclusion criteria. Articles reported a combination of quantitative, mixed methods and qualitative studies and a range of low-, moderate- and high-quality studies. Although, in-keeping with narrative synthesis approaches, none were excluded based on methodological quality. Five themes were identified relating to: patient eligibility identification, who provides information and seeks consent, resource limitations, research culture or environment and the consent model used. The relative success of recruitment strategies was dependent upon the experience and availability of the staff involved in the approach, trial design, the application of the strategy to the specific intensive care environment, the acceptability of the recruitment and consent models used, and the efficiency of the recruitment procedures. Opportunities for consent were missed in a proportion of eligible patients in most studies, suggesting that clinicians may avoid recruiting more complex patients or in more complex situations and that further development of strategies is needed.

CONCLUSION

More effective recruitment strategies are required to enhance recruitment and the representativeness of the patient sample obtained in critical care trials, in order to expand the evidence base for treatments in this field. Greater focus is needed on assessing the performance of different recruitment strategies within different types of studies and critical care research environments. Future research should explore key stakeholders' experiences of, and attitudes towards, recruitment and establish the most important and feasible modifiable barriers to recruitment.

Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated.

METHOD

We surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication.

RESULTS

The risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards.

CONCLUSION

Our study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

Why 'understanding' of research may not be necessary for ethical emergency research

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to generating knowledge about effectiveness of interventions as well as risk, protective and prognostic factors related to diseases in emergency newborn care. Whether prospective participants understand the purpose of research, and what they perceive as the influence of the context on their understanding of the informed consent process for RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care are not well documented.

METHODS

Conceptual review.

DISCUSSION

Research is necessary to identify how the illnesses may be prevented, to explore the causes, and to investigate what medications could be used to manage such illness. Voluntary informed consent requires that prospective participants understand the disclose information about the research, and use this to make autonomous informed decision about participation, in line with their preferences and values. Yet the emergency context affects how information may be disclosed to prospective research participants, how much participants may comprehend, and how participants may express their voluntary decision to participate, all of which pose a threat to the validity of the informed consent. I challenge the claim that the 'understanding' of research is always necessary for ethical informed consent for research during emergency care. I argue for reconceptualization of the value of understanding, through recognition of other values that may be equally important. I then present a reflective perspective that frames moral reflection about autonomy, beneficence and justice in research in emergency research.

CONCLUSION

While participant 'understanding' of research is important, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for a valid informed consent, and may compete with other values with which it needs to be considered.

Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?

BACKGROUND

Efforts to improve informed consent have led to calls for providing information a reasonable person would want to have, in a way that facilitates understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate. At the same time, advances in large-scale genomic research have expanded both the opportunities and the risks for participants, families, and communities. To advance the use of effective consent materials that reflect this landscape, we used empirical data to develop model consent language, as well as brief questions to assist people in thinking about their own values relative to participation.

METHODS

We conducted in-person interviews to gather preliminary input on these materials from a diverse sample (n = 32) of the general population in Nashville, Tennessee. We asked them to highlight information they found especially reassuring or concerning, their hypothetical willingness to participate, and their opinions about the values questions.

RESULTS

Consent information most often highlighted as reassuring included the purpose of the biobank, the existence and composition of a multidisciplinary oversight committee, the importance of participants' privacy and efforts to protect it, and controlled access to a scientific database. Information most often highlighted as concerning included the deposition of data in a publicly accessible database, the risk of unintended access to data, the potential for non-research use of data, and use of medical record information in general. Seventy-five percent of participants indicated initial willingness to participate in the hypothetical biobank; this decreased to 66% as participants more closely considered the information over the course of the interview. A large majority rated the values questions as helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with other research on public perspectives on biobanking and genomic cohort studies, suggesting that our model language effectively captures commonly expressed reasons for and against participation. Our study enriches this literature by connecting specific consent form disclosures with qualitative data regarding what participants found especially reassuring or concerning and why. Interventions that facilitate individuals' closer engagement with consent information may result in participation decisions more closely aligned with their values.

Informed Consent Documents Used in Critical Care Trials Often Do Not Implement Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Informed consent documents are often poorly understood by research participants. In critical care, issues such as time pressure, patient capacity, and surrogate decision making complicate the consent process further. Recommendations exist for addressing critical care-specific consent issues; we examined how well existing practice implements these recommendations.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic search of the literature for recommendations specific to critical care informed consent and rated existing informed consent documents on their implementation of 1) 18 of these critical care recommendations and 2) 36 previously developed general informed consent recommendations. Four hundred twelve registered critical care trials were identified and a request sent to the principal investigators for an example of the informed consent document associated with the trial. Each consent document was rated on both set of recommendations.

SETTING

We evaluated informed consent documents for trials conducted in English or French registered with clinicaltrials.gov.

PATIENTS

Not applicable.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Independent coders rated implementation of each recommendation on a four-point scale. Of 412 requests, 137 informed consent documents were returned, for a response rate of 34.1%. Of these, 86 met inclusion criteria and were assessed. Overall agreement between raters was 90.6% (weighted κ = 0.79; 0.77-0.81). Implementation of the 18 critical care recommendations was highly variable, ranging between 2% and 96.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care studies often do not provide the information recommended for those providing consent for research. These clear recommendations provide testable hypotheses about how to improve the consent process for patients and family members considering trial participation in the critical care setting.

Thought leader perspectives on benefits and harms in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research is underway to identify targeted approaches to improving health and preventing disease. However, such endeavors raise significant privacy and confidentiality concerns. The objective of this study was to elucidate the potential benefits and harms associated with precision medicine research through in-depth interviews with a diverse group of thought leaders, including primarily U.S.-based experts and scholars in the areas of ethics, genome research, health law, historically-disadvantaged populations, informatics, and participant-centric perspectives, as well as government officials and human subjects protections leaders. The results suggest the prospect of an array of individual and societal benefits, as well as physical, dignitary, group, economic, psychological, and legal harms. Relative to the way risks and harms are commonly described in consent forms for precision medicine research, the thought leaders we interviewed arguably emphasized a somewhat different set of issues. The return of individual research results, harm to socially-identifiable groups, the value-dependent nature of many benefits and harms, and the risks to the research enterprise itself emerged as important cross-cutting themes. Our findings highlight specific challenges that warrant concentrated care during the design, conduct, dissemination, and translation of precision medicine research and in the development of consent materials and processes.

Assessment of the understanding of informed consent including participants' experiences, and generation of a supplemental consent decision aid for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) research

Background: Informed consent is a basic ethical requirement of clinical research, yet deficiencies have been documented in the comprehension of its components among trial participants. Pregnancy research is sparsely conducted. Assessment of understanding of the informed consent among pregnant women suffering from Gestational Diabetes Mellitus enrolled in a randomized controlled trial, and their experiences was planned. Methodology: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted among participants of EMERGE clinical trial at the University Hospital, Galway. Willing participants allowed observation of their consent encounters. They completed the standard QuIC questionnaire at follow up visits for assessment of objective and subjective understanding of informed consent, and reasons to participate and level of satisfaction. Data was entered and analysed using Microsoft Office Excel and Minitab version 18. Results: The most commonly asked questions asked in the twenty consent encounters observed were focused upon the safety of the study drug for the developing foetuses and women. The general attitude of the women was positive towards participation. The mean objective understanding score was 72.43 ± 7 and the subjective understanding score was 91.67 ± 8.68 (out of 100). Critical components of consent like voluntarism, randomisation, withdrawal, and benefit to others were well understood. The domains related to nonstandard nature of treatment, additional risks/discomforts and compensation were poorly understood. The women cited the desire to provide benefit to future patients as the most common reason to participate, and most were satisfied with the consent process. Conclusion: Comprehension of informed consent is good in most aspects, but the grasp of certain concepts is poor among the pregnant women. Efforts are needed to improve informed consent through engagement of investigators, research nurses and possibly, the use of a decision aid.

Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views

PURPOSE

Innovation will be required to improve the informed consent process in research. We aimed to obtain input from key stakeholders-research participants and those responsible for obtaining informed consent-to inform potential development of a multimedia informed consent "app."

METHODS

This descriptive study used a mixed-methods approach. Five 90-minute focus groups were conducted with volunteer samples of former research participants and researchers/research staff responsible for obtaining informed consent. Participants also completed a brief survey that measured background information and knowledge and attitudes regarding research and the use of technology. Established qualitative methods were used to conduct the focus groups and data analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted five focus groups with 41 total participants: three groups with former research participants (total n = 22), and two groups with researchers and research coordinators (total n = 19). Overall, individuals who had previously participated in research had positive views regarding their experiences. However, further discussion elicited that the informed consent process often did not meet its intended objectives. Findings from both groups are presented according to three primary themes: content of consent forms, experience of the informed consent process, and the potential of technology to improve the informed consent process. A fourth theme, need for lay input on informed consent, emerged from the researcher groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to previous research that suggests that the use of interactive technology has the potential to improve the process of informed consent. However, our focus-group findings provide additional insight that technology cannot replace the human connection that is central to the informed consent process. More research that incorporates the views of key stakeholders is needed to ensure that multimedia consent processes do not repeat the mistakes of paper-based consent forms.

Parallel multicentre randomised trial of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering participation in phase 3 cancer treatment trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering enrolment in cancer treatment trials.

SETTING

Tertiary cancer referral hospitals in three state capital cities in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

88 patients with cancer attending three cancer centres in Australia, who were considering enrolment in phase 3 treatment trials, were invited to enrol in an unblinded randomised trial of provision of a clinical trial question prompt list (QPL) before consenting to enrol in the treatment trial.

INTERVENTIONS

We developed and pilot tested a targeted QPL for patients with cancer considering clinical trial participation (the clinical trial QPL). Consenting patients were randomised to receive the clinical trial QPL or not before further discussion with their oncologist and/or trial nurse about the treatment trial.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Questionnaires were completed at baseline and within 3 weeks of deciding on treatment trial participation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

scores on the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire (QuIC).

RESULTS

88 patients of 130 sought for the study were enrolled (43 males), and 45 received the clinical trial QPL. 49% of trials were chemotherapy interventions for patients with advanced disease, 35% and 16% were surgical adjuvant and radiation adjuvant trials respectively. 70 patients completed all relevant questionnaires. 28 of 43 patients in the control arm compared with 39 of 45 patients receiving the clinical trial QPL completed the QuIC (p=0.0124). There were no significant differences in the QuIC scores between the randomised groups (QuIC part A p=0.08 and QuIC part B p=0.92). There were no differences in patient satisfaction with decisions or in anxiety levels between the randomised groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a question prompt list did not significantly change the QuIC scores in this randomised trial. ANZCTR 12606000214538 prospectively registered 31/5/2006.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Results, ACTRN12606000214538.

Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how

The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Several interventions have been developed to promote informed consent for participants in clinical trials. However, many of these interventions focus on the content and structure of information (e.g. enhanced information or changes to the presentation format) rather than the process of decision making. Patient decision aids support a decision making process about medical options. Decision aids support the decision process by providing information about available options and their associated outcomes, alongside information that enables patients to consider what value they place on particular outcomes, and provide structured guidance on steps of decision making. They have been shown to be effective for treatment and screening decisions but evidence on their effectiveness in the context of informed consent for clinical trials has not been synthesised.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of decision aids for clinical trial informed consent compared to no intervention, standard information (i.e. usual practice) or an alternative intervention on the decision making process.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases and to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1950); EMBASE (OvidSP) (from 1980); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (from 1806); ASSIA (ProQuest) (from 1987); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/); ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We contacted study authors and other experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing decision aids in the informed consent process for clinical trials alone, or in conjunction with standard information (such as written or verbal) or alongside alternative interventions (e.g. paper-based versus web-based decision aids). Included trials involved potential trial participants, or their guardians, being asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted reported data and assessed risk of bias. Findings were pooled where appropriate. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one study (290 randomised participants) that investigated the effectiveness of decision aids compared to standard information in the informed consent process for clinical trials. This study reported two separate decision aid randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The decision aid trials were nested within two different parent trials focusing on breast cancer in postmenopausal women. One trial focused on informed consent for treatment in women who had previously had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the other on informed consent for prevention in women at high risk for breast cancer. Two different decision aids were used in these RCTs, and were compared with standard information.The pooled findings highlight the uncertainty surrounding most reported outcomes, including knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, trial participation and attrition. There was very low quality evidence that decision aids lower levels of decisional regret to a small degree (MD -5.53, 95% CI -10.29 to -0.76). No data were identified on several prespecified primary outcomes, including accurate risk perception, values-based decision, or whether potential participants recognised that a decision needed to be made, were able to identify features of options that matter most to individuals, or were involved in the decision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether decision aids to support the informed consent process for clinical trials are more effective than standard information. Additional well designed, adequately powered clinical trials in more diverse clinical and social populations are needed to strengthen the results of this review. More generally, future research on which outcomes are most relevant for assessment in this context would be helpful.

Development and piloting of a decision aid for women considering participation in the Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance 2 breast cancer trial

Background/aims:

This study aimed to (1) develop a decision aid for women considering participation in the Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance 2 (SNAC-2) breast cancer surgical trial and (2) obtain evidence on its acceptability, feasibility, and potential efficacy in routine trial clinical practice via a two-stage pilot.

Methods:

The decision aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Study 1: an initial pilot involved 25 members of the consumer advocacy group, Breast Cancer Network Australia. Study 2: the main pilot involved 20 women eligible to participate in the SNAC-2 trial in New Zealand. In both pilots, a questionnaire assessed: information and involvement preferences, decisional conflict, SNAC-2 trial-related understanding and attitudes, psychological distress, and general decision aid feedback. A follow-up telephone interview elicited more detailed feedback on the decision aid design and content.

Results:

In both pilots, participants indicated good subjective and objective understanding of SNAC-2 trial and reported low decisional conflict and anxiety. The decision aid was found helpful when deciding about trial participation and provided additional, useful information to the standard trial information sheet.

Conclusion:

The development and two-stage piloting process for this decision aid resulted in a resource that women found very acceptable and helpful in assisting decision-making about SNAC-2 trial participation. The process and findings provide a guide for developing other trial decision aids.

Elements of informed consent and decision quality were poorly correlated in informed consent documents

OBJECTIVES

Although informed consent (IC) documents must contain specific elements, inclusion of these elements may be insufficient to encourage high-quality decision making. We assessed the extent to which documents conform to IC standards and how well conformity to decision quality (DQ) standards can be predicted by IC standards, IC document characteristics, and study characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We obtained 139 IC documents for trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from study investigators. Using a four-point scale, two raters independently assessed each IC document on 36 IC standard items and 9 DQ items.

RESULTS

Overall agreement between raters across all 45 items was 93%. Across the 36 IC standards items, conformity was generally quite high but variable, with 20 items showing conformity of 80% or more and seven items showing conformity of 50% or lower. IC standards concordance, overall length of the IC document, and country of study were all significant predictors of DQ standards but together accounted for less than 20% of the variance in DQ standards.

CONCLUSION

Conformity to recommendations for improving IC documents was relatively high but variable. The extent to which an IC document conformed to these recommendations was only moderately related to whether it conformed to recommendations for improving DQ. Existing IC regulations may not describe the optimal approach to helping people make good study participation decisions.

Improving decision making about clinical trial participation - a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering participation in the IBIS-II breast cancer prevention trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids may improve informed consent in clinical trial recruitment, but have not been evaluated in this context. This study investigated whether decision aids (DAs) can reduce decisional difficulties among women considering participation in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study-II (IBIS-II) trial.

METHODS

The IBIS-II trial investigated breast cancer prevention with anastrazole in two cohorts: women with increased risk (Prevention), and women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom participants were randomised to receive a DA (DA group) or standard trial consent materials (control group). Questionnaires were completed after deciding about participation in IBIS-II (post decision) and 3 months later (follow-up).

RESULTS

Data from 112 Prevention and 34 DCIS participants were analysed post decision (73 DA; 73 control); 95 Prevention and 24 DCIS participants were analysed at follow-up (58 DA; 61 control). There was no effect on the primary outcome of decisional conflict. The DCIS-DA group had higher knowledge post decision, and the Prevention-DA group had lower decisional regret at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to evaluate a DA in the clinical trial setting. The results suggest DAs can potentially increase knowledge and reduce decisional regret about clinical trial participation.

Enhancing the informed consent process for critical care research: strategies from a thromboprophylaxis trial

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients lack capacity for decisions about research participation. Consent to enrol these patients in studies is typically obtained from substitute decision-makers.

OBJECTIVE

To present strategies that may optimise the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers for participation of critically ill patients in trials. We use examples from a randomised trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (PROTECT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143).

METHODS

3764 patients were randomised, with an informed consent rate of 82%; 90% of consents were obtained from substitute decision-makers. North American PROTECT research coordinators attended three meetings to discuss enrolment: (1) Trial start-up (January 2006); (2) Near trial closure (January 2010); and (3) Post-publication (April 2011). Data were derived from slide presentations, field notes from break-out groups and plenary discussions, then analysed inductively.

RESULTS

We derived three phases for the informed consent process: (1) Preparation for the Consent Encounter; (2) The Consent Encounter; and (3) Follow-up to the Consent Encounter. Specific strategies emerged for each phase: Phase 1 (four strategies); Phase 2 (six strategies); and Phase 3 (three strategies).

CONCLUSION

We identified 13 strategies that may improve the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers and be generalisable to other settings and studies.

Thematic analysis of cardiac care patients' explanations for declining contribution to a genomic research-based biobank

BACKGROUND

Health care delivery systems increasingly ask patients to contribute biological samples for future genomic-based health research during critical care admissions, as the result of genome-based research requirements of unprecedented large sample sizes. Few reports describe patients' perceptions and responses to actual biobanking approaches in clinical settings. A qualitative study was conducted to explore 568 cardiac care patients' explanations of why they declined to contribute their samples to a future genomic research biobank.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) identify themes emerging from explanations for declining contribution to the research biobanking initiative and (2) determine how the content informs the stewardship conceptual framework that addresses evidence-based clinical ethics practices in genomic and genetic research biobanking.

METHODS

This qualitative study used an analytic method that combines inductive and deductive approaches to identify themes in patients' explanations for declining to contribute to a research biobank initiative. The hybrid design has relevance to health services research that seeks to develop taxonomy, themes, and theory.

RESULTS

Inductive approaches showed that themes of intrusion and autonomy dominated explanations. Deductive approaches affirmed previously proposed elements of a stewardship conceptual framework that addresses ethics in biobanking.

CONCLUSION

Research in understanding patients' perceptions can guide nursing and biobank practices in developing best practices.

Informed consent documents do not encourage good-quality decision making

OBJECTIVE

Informed consent for research has emphasized information provision over support to people making a difficult decision. We assessed the extent to which existing informed consent documents (ICDs) conform to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards for supporting decision making.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

One hundred thirty-nine ICDs for trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov were obtained from study investigators. Using a four-point scale, two raters assessed each ICD on 32 items.

RESULTS

Overall agreement between raters was 95.1% (linear weighted kappa-0.745). For 12 items focused on providing enough information, conformity was above 50% for three, and 0% for another four. For all eight items focused on how to present outcome probabilities, conformity was below 20%. For two items focused on clarifying and expressing values, conformity was below 10%. For two items focused on improving structured guidance, conformity was below 5%. For four items focused on using evidence, one item showed conformity of 74%; all others showed conformity below 5%. For four items focused on transparency, conformity was high (above 60% for two, above 80% for the others).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing ICDs do not meet most validated standards for encouraging good decision making. These standards make clear predictions about how one might improve ICDs ensure that research participants are fully informed.

Radial artery versus femoral artery access options in coronary angiogram procedures: randomized controlled trial of a patient-decision aid

BACKGROUND

Vascular access options in coronary angiography can be considered a preference-sensitive decision, where the benefits/risks have different levels of significance, depending on the individual patient. For preference-sensitive healthcare options, patient decision aids (PtDA) significantly improve the process of decision-making. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based PtDA compared with usual care in patients eligible for radial and femoral artery access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a single-center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial with patients eligible for both femoral and radial access as per their treating physician. The PtDA was designed to guide patients to make an informed choice, consistent with their preferences and values. The primary outcome, decisional conflict, was assessed using the validated decisional conflict scale. One hundred fifty patients were randomized (vascular access PtDA=76 versus usual care=74). The intervention group had a significantly reduced decisional conflict scale compared with control (unadjusted 14.8 versus 19.5, P=0.04) and were significantly more knowledgeable regarding risks/benefits associated with each vascular access (mean knowledge score 3/5 (95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 3.3) versus 2/5 (95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.3, P<0.01). PtDA patients had better informed value congruence with their vascular access received (47.3% versus 25.7%, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in procedural success or safety between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A vascular access PtDA for eligible patients undergoing coronary angiogram procedures reduces decisional conflict and improves value congruence and the patients' knowledge of their healthcare options; however, a multicenter study, powered to confirm these benefits and evaluate differences in procedural success or complications, is required.

Moving SDM forward in Canada: milestones, public involvement, and barriers that remain

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) is as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans at various administrative levels. SDM initiatives are taking place in different pockets of the country and are in different stages of development. The most advanced provincial initiative is occurring in Saskatchewan, where in 2010 the provincial government prepare to introduce patient decision aids into certain surgical specialties. With regard to decision support tools for patients, perhaps the most active entity is the Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario. This group maintains a public inventory of decision aids ranked according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and has developed the generic Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, as well as a toolkit for integrating decision aids in clinical practice. All of these tools are publicly available free of charge. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but Canada's principal health research funding agency is sponsoring several important SDM projects. Researchers from institutions across the country are promoting SDM through continuing professional development programs and other interventions in fields as varied as primary care, dietary medicine and workplace rehabilitation. Still, the future of SDM in Canada remains uncertain. Canada's provincially based structure obliges promoters to work with each province separately, and the recent growth of private healthcare risks dissipating efforts to implement SDM.