The preferences of 600 patients for different descriptions of randomisation

Trial participants' self-reported understanding of randomisation phrases in participation information leaflets can be high, but acceptability of some descriptions is low, especially those linked to gambling and luck

BACKGROUND

Evidence indicates that trial participants often struggle to understand participant information leaflets (PILs) for clinical trials, including the concept of randomisation. We analysed the language used to describe randomisation in PILs and determine the most understandable and acceptable description through public and participant feedback.

METHODS

We collected 280 PILs/informed consent forms and one video animation from clinical research facilities/clinical trial units in Ireland and the UK. We extracted text on how randomisation was described, plus trial characteristics. We conducted content analysis to group the randomisation phrases inductively. We then excluded phrases that appeared more than once or were very similar to others. The final list of randomisation phrases was then presented to an online panel of participants and the public. Panel members were asked to rate each phrase on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of their understanding of the phrase, confidence in their understanding and acceptability of the phrase.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty PILs and the transcribed text from one video animation represented 229 ongoing or concluded trials. The pragmatic content analysis generated five inductive categories: (1) explanation of why randomisation is required in trials; (2) synonyms for randomisation; (3) comparative randomisation phrases; (4) elaborative phrases for randomisation (5) and phrases that describe the process of randomisation. We had 48 unique phrases, which were shared with 73 participants and members of the public. Phrases that were well understood were not necessarily acceptable. Participants understood, but disliked, comparative phrases that referenced gambling, e.g. toss of a coin, like a lottery, roll of a die. They also disliked phrases that attributed decision-making to computers or automated systems. Participants liked plain language descriptions of what randomisation is and those that did not use comparative phrases.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential trial participants are clear on their likes and dislikes when it comes to describing randomisation in PILs. We make five recommendations for practice.

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

BACKGROUND

Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

METHODS

Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method.

RESULTS

Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters.

CONCLUSION

Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Recruiting women with ductal carcinoma in situ to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from the LORIS study

BACKGROUND

The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented.

METHODS

Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews.

RESULTS

Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.

Sexual health promotion in people with severe mental illness: the RESPECT feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness have sexual health needs, but there is limited evidence regarding effective interventions to promote their sexual health.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a sexual health promotion intervention for people with serious mental illness, and to conduct a feasibility trial in order to establish the acceptability and parameters for a fully powered trial.

DESIGN

A two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility study comparing usual care alone with usual care plus the adjunctive intervention.

SETTING

Five community mental health providers in Leeds, Barnsley, Brighton and London.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years with serious mental illness and receiving care from community mental health teams.

INTERVENTIONS

A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to usual care plus the RESPECT (Randomised Evaluation of Sexual health Promotion Effectiveness informing Care and Treatment) intervention (three sessions of 1 hour) (intervention arm) or usual care only (control arm). The intervention was an interactive manualised package of exercises, quizzes and discussion topics focusing on knowledge, motivation and behavioural intentions to adopt safer sexual behaviours.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility parameters including establishing the percentage of people who were eligible, consented and were retained in each arm of the trial, retention for the intervention, as well as the completeness of the data collection. Data were collected on knowledge, motivation to adopt safer sexual behaviour, sexual behaviour, sexual stigma, sexual health service use and quality of life. Data were collected at baseline and then at 3 months and 6 months post randomisation.

RESULTS

Of a target of 100 participants, 72 people participated in the trial over 12 months. Of the 36 participants randomised to the intervention arm, 27 received some of the intervention (75.0%). At 3 months, 59 of the 72 participants completed follow-up questionnaires (81.9%) (30 participants from the intervention arm and 29 participants from the control arm). Only the first 38 participants were followed up at 6 months. However, data were collected on 29 out of 38 participants (76.3% retention): 13 in the intervention arm and 16 in the control arm. No adverse events were reported. Participant feedback confirmed that both the design and the intervention were acceptable. The economic analysis indicated high completion rates and completeness of data among participants who continued the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations, the findings suggest that it is both acceptable and feasible to undertake a sexual health promotion study for people with serious mental illness.

FUTURE WORK

A fully powered randomised controlled trial would be required to establish the clinical effectiveness of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15747739.

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. 23, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sexual health promotion in people with severe mental illness: the RESPECT feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness have sexual health needs, but there is limited evidence regarding effective interventions to promote their sexual health.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a sexual health promotion intervention for people with serious mental illness, and to conduct a feasibility trial in order to establish the acceptability and parameters for a fully powered trial.

DESIGN

A two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility study comparing usual care alone with usual care plus the adjunctive intervention.

SETTING

Five community mental health providers in Leeds, Barnsley, Brighton and London.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years with serious mental illness and receiving care from community mental health teams.

INTERVENTIONS

A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to usual care plus the RESPECT (Randomised Evaluation of Sexual health Promotion Effectiveness informing Care and Treatment) intervention (three sessions of 1 hour) (intervention arm) or usual care only (control arm). The intervention was an interactive manualised package of exercises, quizzes and discussion topics focusing on knowledge, motivation and behavioural intentions to adopt safer sexual behaviours.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility parameters including establishing the percentage of people who were eligible, consented and were retained in each arm of the trial, retention for the intervention, as well as the completeness of the data collection. Data were collected on knowledge, motivation to adopt safer sexual behaviour, sexual behaviour, sexual stigma, sexual health service use and quality of life. Data were collected at baseline and then at 3 months and 6 months post randomisation.

RESULTS

Of a target of 100 participants, 72 people participated in the trial over 12 months. Of the 36 participants randomised to the intervention arm, 27 received some of the intervention (75.0%). At 3 months, 59 of the 72 participants completed follow-up questionnaires (81.9%) (30 participants from the intervention arm and 29 participants from the control arm). Only the first 38 participants were followed up at 6 months. However, data were collected on 29 out of 38 participants (76.3% retention): 13 in the intervention arm and 16 in the control arm. No adverse events were reported. Participant feedback confirmed that both the design and the intervention were acceptable. The economic analysis indicated high completion rates and completeness of data among participants who continued the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations, the findings suggest that it is both acceptable and feasible to undertake a sexual health promotion study for people with serious mental illness.

FUTURE WORK

A fully powered randomised controlled trial would be required to establish the clinical effectiveness of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15747739.

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. 23, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment

OBJECTIVES

To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties.

RESULTS

One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was "best for them". Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation.

Can informed consent to research be adapted to risk?

The current ethical and regulatory framework for research is often charged with burdening investigators and impeding socially valuable research. To address these concerns, a growing number of research ethicists argue that informed consent should be adapted to the risks of research participation. This would require less rigorous consent standards in low-risk research than in high-risk research. However, the current discussion is restricted to cases of research in which the risks of research participation are outweighed by the potential clinical benefits for the individual research participant. Furthermore, current proposals do not address the concern that risk-adapted informed consent may result in enrolling participants into research without their autonomous authorisation. In this paper, we show how the standard view of informed consent--consent as autonomous authorisation--can be adapted to risk even when the research does not have a favourable risk-benefit profile for the participant. Our argument has two important implications: first, it implies that current and proposed consent standards are not adequately calibrated to risk and, second, that consent standards also need to be adapted to factors other than risk.

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.

Conducting randomised controlled trials: finding better ways to explain research to people with anti-social personality disorder who have low literacy levels

BACKGROUND

The involvement of people with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) in clinical trials is necessary to developing effective treatment. Low literacy level, however, may be a barrier to their understanding and therefore their engagement in research.

AIM

Our aim was to find a preferred and most easily understandable way of communicating about research participation with men who have ASPD.

METHODS

Twenty-five men with ASPD who were using mental health services, research experienced and research naïve participated in the study. Literacy levels were assessed. A list of research terms was generated, and statements were developed to ascertain if the terms were understood. The research terms were 'randomisation', 'informed consent', 'confidentiality' and a research question 'why carry out research?' The participants ranked their preferred way of explaining these terms and the method of communicating these.

RESULTS

Those with research experience understood the research terms better. The research naïve and the research experienced men differed in literacy level. Those with below average literacy preferred shorter wordings of research terms than those with average literacy and answered fewer questions correctly. The majority stated a preference for discussion with a researcher before agreeing to take part in research. The least preferred communication methods were those that relied on technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be able to find and use terms that are readily understood and do so. Low literacy levels impair understanding of research terms.

Is the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) valid for tailoring information for patients with head and neck cancer?

Background

The Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) has previously been shown to be a valid and reliable measure responsive to changes in patient satisfaction over time. It has been suggested that the SCIP might be used to guide the tailored provision of treatment information to patients with head and neck cancer but for this purpose the discrimination of the SCIP, not its responsiveness, should be assessed. This paper assesses whether the SCIP is valid as a discriminative measure suitable to guide tailored information.

Methods

The SCIP comprises two parts (SCIP-A and SCIP-B). The discrimination of both parts was explored in a UK sample of 82 newly diagnosed patients with head and neck cancer. Principal components analysis (PCA) was first used to explore the factor structure of the SCIP-A and SCIP-B: discrimination analyses were then conducted at the level of full scale, subscale and item.

Results

Principal components analysis revealed a coherent three-factor solution for the SCIP-A and a single factor for SCIP-B. Both parts of the SCIP proved to be discriminating at the full scale level (SCIP-A Delta = 0.92; SCIP-B Delta = 0.90). The SCIP-A also proved to be discriminating at the subscale level (Delta = 0.85 to 0.89). For the SCIP-A there was wide variation in the discrimination of individual items, confirming its potential to tailor information at the item level. For the SCIP-B, responses to most items indicated uniform satisfaction, suggesting that it would not be useful for tailoring information at the item level.

Conclusion

The SCIP-A has been shown to be a valid discriminative measure and should prove suitable for tailoring treatment information at the level of item, subscale and total scale score. The SCIP-B, while a discriminating measure of total satisfaction, comprises too uniform a set of indicators of patient satisfaction to make it useful for tailoring information at the item level. Overall, the SCIP is valid as a measure of overall satisfaction with information about treatment and as a guide to tailoring such information.

Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors

BACKGROUND

Enrolling participants onto clinical trials of cancer presents an important challenge. We aimed to identify the concerns of patients with cancer about, and the barriers to, participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

We did a systematic review to assess studies of barriers to participation in experimental trials and randomised trials for validity and content. We estimated the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented data for barriers to participation in clinical trials as proportions.

FINDINGS

We analysed 12 qualitative studies (n=722) and 21 quantitative studies (n=5452). Two qualitative studies inquired of patients who were currently enrolled onto clinical trials, and ten inquired of patients who were eligible for enrolment onto various clinical trials. Barriers to participation in clinical trials were protocol-related, patient-related, or physician-related. The most common reasons cited as barriers included: concerns with the trial setting; a dislike of randomisation; general discomfort with the research process; complexity and stringency of the protocol; presence of a placebo or no-treatment group; potential side-effects; being unaware of trial opportunities; the idea that clinical trials are not appropriate for serious diseases; fear that trial involvement would have a negative effect on the relationship with their physician; and their physician's attitudes towards the trial. Meta-analysis confirmed the findings of our systematic review.

INTERPRETATION

The identification of such barriers to the participation in clinical trials should help trialists to develop strategies that will keep to a maximum participation and cooperation in cancer trials, while informing and protecting prospective participants adequately.