Investigators' sense of failure thwarted transparency in clinical trials discontinued for poor recruitment

Participants' perspectives of being recruited into a randomised trial of a weight loss intervention before colorectal cancer surgery: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

The period between cancer diagnosis and surgery presents an opportunity for trials to assess the feasibility of behaviour change interventions. However, this can be a worrying time for patients and may hinder recruitment. We describe the perspectives of patients with excess weight awaiting colorectal cancer surgery about their recruitment into a randomised trial of a prehabilitation weight loss intervention.

METHODS

We interviewed the first 26 participants from the 8 recruitment sites across England in the 'CARE' feasibility trial. Participants were randomised into either usual care (n = 13) or a low-energy nutritionally-replete total diet replacement programme with weekly remote behavioural support by a dietitian (n = 13). The semi-structured interviews occurred shortly after recruitment and the questions focused on participants' recollections of being recruited into the trial. We analysed data rapidly and then used a mind-mapping technique to develop descriptive themes. Themes were agreed by all co-authors, including a person with lived-experience of colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean body mass index (± SD) of 38 kg/m2 (± 6), age of 50 years (± 12), and 42% were female. People who participated in the trial were motivated by the offer of structured weight loss support that could potentially help them improve their surgical outcomes. However, participants also had concerns around the potential unpalatability of the intervention diet and side effects. Positive attitudes of clinicians towards the trial facilitated recruitment but participants were disappointed when they were randomised to usual care due to clinical teams' overemphasis on the benefits of losing weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were motivated to take part by the prospect of improved surgical outcomes. However, the strong preference to be allocated to the intervention suggests that balanced communication of equipoise is crucial to minimise disappointment from randomisation to usual care and differential dropout from the trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN39207707, Registration date 13/03/2023.

Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

Since 2017, the UK government has made concerted efforts to ensure the dissemination of clinical trials conducted at public research institutions. This study aims to understand how stakeholders within these institutions responded to these pressures and modified internal policies and processes while identifying best practices and barriers to improved transparency practice.

METHODS

Research governance and trial management staff from UK public research institutions (i.e., Universities and NHS Trusts) in England, Scotland and Wales participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, aided by the framework method.

RESULTS

Between November 2020 and July 2021, 14 individual participants were recruited from 11 different institutions. They worked in research governance, administration, and management. Almost universally, new policies and procedures have been established to ensure investigators are aware of, and supported in, fulfilling their transparency commitments, however challenges remain. Trials of medicinal products, as the most closely regulated research, consequently received the most attention. National professional networks aid in sharing knowledge and best practice within this community.

CONCLUSIONS

Investment in the institutional governance of transparency is essential to achieving optimal transparency practices. Universities and hospitals share responsibility for ensuring research is performed and reported to regulatory standards. Facing political pressure, public research institutions in the UK have made efforts to improve their transparency practice which can provide key insights for similar efforts elsewhere.

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study

Background

A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life.

Objective

Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome.

Methods

A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment.

Results

Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.

Practices and attitudes of Bavarian stakeholders regarding the secondary-use of health data for research purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study (Preprint)

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic is a threat to global health and requires collaborative health research efforts across organizations and countries to address it. Although routinely collected digital health data are a valuable source of information for researchers, benefiting from these data requires accessing and sharing the data. Health care organizations focusing on individual risk minimization threaten to undermine COVID-19 research efforts, and it has been argued that there is an ethical obligation to use the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) scientific research exemption during the COVID-19 pandemic to support collaborative health research.

Objective

This study aims to explore the practices and attitudes of stakeholders in the German federal state of Bavaria regarding the secondary use of health data for research purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on the GDPR scientific research exemption.

Methods

Individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with a purposive sample of 17 stakeholders from 3 different groups in Bavaria: researchers involved in COVID-19 research (n=5, 29%), data protection officers (n=6, 35%), and research ethics committee representatives (n=6, 35%). The transcripts were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

Participants identified systemic challenges in conducting collaborative secondary-use health data research in Bavaria; secondary health data research generally only happens when patient consent has been obtained, or the data have been fully anonymized. The GDPR research exemption has not played a significant role during the pandemic and is currently seldom and restrictively used. Participants identified 3 key groups of barriers that led to difficulties: the wider ecosystem at many Bavarian health care organizations, legal uncertainty that leads to risk-adverse approaches, and ethical positions that patient consent ought to be obtained whenever possible to respect patient autonomy. To improve health data research in Bavaria and across Germany, participants wanted greater legal certainty regarding the use of pseudonymized data for research purposes without the patient’s consent.

Conclusions

The current balance between enabling the positive goals of health data research and avoiding associated data protection risks is heavily skewed toward avoiding risks; so much so that it makes reaching the goals of health data research extremely difficult. This is important, as it is widely recognized that there is an ethical imperative to use health data to improve care. The current approach also creates a problematic conflict with the ambitions of Germany, and the federal state of Bavaria, to be a leader in artificial intelligence. A recent development in the field of German public administration known as norm screening (Normenscreening) could potentially provide a systematic approach to minimize legal barriers. This approach would likely be beneficial to other countries.