1
|
Shankar M, Hazfiarini A, Zahroh RI, Vogel JP, McDougall ARA, Condron P, Goudar SS, Pujar YV, Somannavar MS, Charantimath U, Ammerdorffer A, Rushwan S, Gülmezoglu AM, Bohren MA. Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS Med 2024; 21:e1004405. [PMID: 38814991 PMCID: PMC11139290 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 06/01/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem. METHODS AND FINDINGS We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mridula Shankar
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alya Hazfiarini
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rana Islamiah Zahroh
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Joshua P. Vogel
- Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Annie R. A. McDougall
- Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Patrick Condron
- University Library, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shivaprasad S. Goudar
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | - Yeshita V. Pujar
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | - Manjunath S. Somannavar
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | - Umesh Charantimath
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | | | - Sara Rushwan
- Concept Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland/Bangkok, Thailand
| | | | - Meghan A. Bohren
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Davis S, Pandor A, Sampson FC, Hamilton J, Nelson-Piercy C, Hunt BJ, Daru J, Goodacre S, Carser R, Rooney G, Clowes M. Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-176. [PMID: 38476084 PMCID: PMC11017156 DOI: 10.3310/dfwt3873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Davis
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Abdullah Pandor
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Fiona C Sampson
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Jean Hamilton
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Beverley J Hunt
- Haematology and Pathology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jahnavi Daru
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Steve Goodacre
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Rosie Carser
- Patient and Public Involvement, Thrombosis UK, Llanwrda, UK
| | - Gill Rooney
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mark Clowes
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Stensland KD, Sales AE, Vedapudi VK, Damschroder LJ, Skolarus TA. Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders. Trials 2023; 24:297. [PMID: 37106368 PMCID: PMC10142148 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07304-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Accepted: 04/07/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes. METHODS We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed. RESULTS The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based. CONCLUSION Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristian D Stensland
- Department of Urology, Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, NCRC, Building 16, 100S-12, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
- Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Anne E Sales
- University of Missouri and Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, USA
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | | - Laura J Damschroder
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Ted A Skolarus
- Department of Urology, Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, NCRC, Building 16, 100S-12, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Coffey T, Duncan E, Morgan H, Gillies K. Developing strategies to address disparities in retention communication during the consent discussion: development of a behavioural intervention. Trials 2023; 24:296. [PMID: 37101245 PMCID: PMC10134580 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07268-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 04/28/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trials are essential to evidence-based medicine. Their success relies on recruitment and retention of participants: problems with either can affect validity of results. Past research on improving trials has focused on recruitment, with less on retention, and even less considering retention at the point of recruitment, i.e., what retention-relevant information is shared during consent processes. The behaviour of trial staff communicating this information during consent is likely to contribute to retention. So, developing approaches to mitigate issues in retention at the point of consent is necessary. In this study, we describe the development of a behavioural intervention targeting the communication of information important to retention during the consent process. METHODS We applied the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention aimed at changing the retention communication behaviours of trial staff. Building on findings from an interview study to understand the barriers/facilitators to retention communication during consent, we identified behaviour change techniques that could moderate them. These techniques were grouped into potential intervention categories and presented to a co-design group of trial staff and public partners to discuss how they might be packaged into an intervention. An intervention was presented to these same stakeholders and assessed for acceptability through a survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS Twenty-six behaviour change techniques were identified with potential to change communication of retention-information at consent. Six trial stakeholders in the co-design group discussed means for implementing these techniques and agreed the available techniques could be most effective within a series of meetings focussed on best practices for communicating retention at consent. The proposed intervention was deemed acceptable through survey results. CONCLUSION We have developed an intervention aimed at facilitating the communication of retention at informed consent through a behavioural approach. This intervention will be delivered to trial staff and will add to the available strategies for trials to improve retention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taylor Coffey
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
| | - Eilidh Duncan
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK
| | - Heather Morgan
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Farrar N, Elliott D, Houghton C, Jepson M, Mills N, Paramasivan S, Plumb L, Wade J, Young B, Donovan JL, Rooshenas L. Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Trials 2022; 23:883. [PMID: 36266700 PMCID: PMC9585862 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06818-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters’ perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs. Methods A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden’s approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings. Results In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles. Conclusions This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06818-4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Farrar
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Daisy Elliott
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Catherine Houghton
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, Áras Moyola, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Marcus Jepson
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Sangeetha Paramasivan
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Lucy Plumb
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,UK Kidney Association, UK Renal Registry, Bristol, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Bridget Young
- Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hanrahan V, Lawrie L, Duncan E, Biesty L, Gillies K. Development of a co-designed behaviour change intervention aimed at healthcare professionals recruiting to clinical trials in maternity care. Trials 2022; 23:870. [PMID: 36224619 PMCID: PMC9556136 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06816-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2022] [Indexed: 05/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The evidence on what strategies can improve recruitment to clinical trials in maternity care is lacking. As trial recruiters, maternity healthcare professionals (MHCPs) perform behaviours (e.g. talking about trials with potential participants, distributing trial information) they may not ordinarily do outside of the trial. Most trial recruitment interventions do not provide any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) or describe if stakeholders were involved during development. The study aim was to use behavioural theory in a co-design process to develop an intervention for MHCPs tasked with approaching all eligible potential participants and inviting them to join a maternity trial and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of such an intervention. Methods This study applied a step-wise sequential mixed-methods approach. Key stages were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy to map the accounts of MHCPs, with regard to challenges to trial recruitment, to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. Our recruitment intervention was co-designed during workshops with MHCPs and maternity service users. Acceptability and feasibility of our intervention was assessed using an online questionnaire based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and involved a range of trial stakeholders. Results Two co-design workshops, with a total of nine participants (n = 7 MHCP, n = 2 maternity service users), discussed thirteen BCTs as potential solutions. Ten BCTs, broadly covering Consequences and Reframing, progressed to intervention development. Forty-five trial stakeholders (clinical midwives, research midwives/nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and trial team members) participated in the online TFA questionnaire. The intervention was perceived effective, coherent, and not burdensome to engage with. Core areas for future refinement included Anticipated opportunity and Self-efficacy. Conclusion We developed a behaviour change recruitment intervention which is based on the accounts of MHCP trial recruiters and developed in a co-design process. Overall, the intervention was deemed acceptable. Future evaluation of the intervention will establish its effectiveness in enabling MHCPs to invite all eligible people to participate in a maternity care trial, and determine whether this translates into an increase in maternity trial recruitment rates. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06816-6.
Collapse
|