Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

'Do I have the capacity to make capacity judgements?' Researcher reflections from a person-centred dementia support study

Background and purpose

Adults lacking capacity are under-represented in research; therefore, the evidence-base surrounding their support needs is inferior compared to other populations. Involving this group in research is fraught with challenges, including researcher uncertainties about how to carry out capacity judgements. Whilst ethical guidelines and principles provide overarching guidance, there is a lack of detailed guidance and evidence-based training, incorporating practical ‘on the ground’ strategies and advice on communication practices. Experiences and reflections on research procedures used to gauge and address capacity are under reported, resulting in a lack of shared knowledge within the field.

Design

To help address this, we engaged in researcher (co)meta-reflection on the informed capacity judgement procedure for initial consent, within our current, person-centred dementia intervention feasibility study. Our objective was to identify areas to improve our approach, but to also put forward suggestions for wider change within ethical research practice.

Results

Findings reveal challenges and facilitators relating to six areas: ‘Conducting time sensitive research whilst remaining person-centred and building relationships’; ‘Information sharing and supporting communication’; ‘Applying the process flexibly’; ‘The role of the carer and the consultee process’; ‘Judging assent and dissent’ and ‘Researcher related factors’. We questioned our ‘capacity to make capacity judgements’ in terms of both our skills and research time constraints.

Conclusions

Based on our experiences, we argue for greater open discussion between researchers, Patient and Public Involvement contributors and Research Ethics Committees at initial project planning stages. We recommend training and guidance focuses on building researcher skills in applying a standard process flexibly, emphasising naturalistic, conversational approaches to capacity judgement. A crucial consideration for funders is how this time-intensive and sensitive work should be factored into bid application templates and funding grants. Learnings from this article have potential to inform evidence-based guidance and training for researchers, consultees, funders, reviewers and ethics committees.

An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent

BACKGROUND

There is increasing international recognition that populations included in trials should adequately represent the population treated in clinical practice; however, adults who lack the capacity to provide informed consent are frequently excluded from trials. Addressing the under-representation of groups such as those with impaired capacity to consent is essential to develop effective interventions and provide these groups with the opportunity to benefit from evidence-based care. While the spotlight has been on ensuring only appropriate and justifiable exclusion criteria are used in trials, barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity are multifactorial and complex, and addressing their under-representation will require more than merely widening eligibility criteria. This commentary draws on the literature exploring the inclusion of adults lacking the capacity to consent in research and a number of recent studies to describe the methodological, structural, and systemic factors that have been identified.

MAIN TEXT

A number of potentially modifiable factors contributing to the under-representation of adults lacking the capacity to consent in trials have been identified. In addition to restrictive eligibility criteria, methodological issues include developing appropriate interventions and outcome measures for populations with impaired capacity. Structurally determined factors include the resource-intensive nature of these trials, the requirement for more appropriate research infrastructure, and a lack of interventions to inform and support proxy decision-makers. Systemic factors include the complexities of the legal frameworks, the challenges of ethical review processes, and paternalistic attitudes towards protecting adults with incapacity from the perceived harms of research.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures needed to address under-representation include greater scrutiny of exclusion criteria by those reviewing study proposals, providing education and training for personnel who design, conduct, and review research, ensuring greater consistency in the reviews undertaken by research ethics committees, and extending processes for advance planning to include prospectively appointing a proxy for research and documenting preferences about research participation. Negative societal and professional attitudes towards the inclusion of adults with impaired capacity in research should also be addressed, and the development of trials that are more person-centred should be encouraged. Further work to conceptualise under-representation in trials for such populations may also be helpful.

Do we know how scabies outbreaks in residential and nursing care homes for the elderly should be managed? A systematic review of interventions using a novel approach to assess evidence quality

Currently no national guidelines exist for the management of scabies outbreaks in residential or nursing care homes for the elderly in the United Kingdom. In this setting, diagnosis and treatment of scabies outbreaks is often delayed and optimal drug treatment, environmental control measures and even outcome measures are unclear. We undertook a systematic review to establish the efficacy of outbreak management interventions and determine evidence-based recommendations. Four electronic databases were searched for relevant studies, which were assessed using a quality assessment tool drawing on STROBE guidelines to describe the quality of observational data. Nineteen outbreak reports were identified, describing both drug treatment and environmental management measures. The quality of data was poor; none reported all outcome measures and only four described symptom relief measures. We were unable to make definitive evidence-based recommendations. We draw on the results to propose a framework for data collection in future observational studies of scabies outbreaks. While high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to determine optimal drug treatment, evidence on environmental measures will need augmentation through other literature studies. The quality assessment tool designed is a useful resource for reporting of outcome measures including patient-reported measures in future outbreaks.

Precision public health to inhibit the contagion of disease and move toward a future in which microbes spread health

Antimicrobial resistance continues to outpace the development of new chemotherapeutics. Novel pathogens continue to evolve and emerge. Public health innovation has the potential to open a new front in the war of "our wits against their genes" (Joshua Lederberg). Dense sampling coupled to next generation sequencing can increase the spatial and temporal resolution of microbial characterization while sensor technologies precisely map physical parameters relevant to microbial survival and spread. Microbial, physical, and epidemiological big data could be combined to improve prospective risk identification. However, applied in the wrong way, these approaches may not realize their maximum potential benefits and could even do harm. Minimizing microbial-human interactions would be a mistake. There is evidence that microbes previously thought of at best "benign" may actually enhance human health. Benign and health-promoting microbiomes may, or may not, spread via mechanisms similar to pathogens. Infectious vaccines are approaching readiness to make enhanced contributions to herd immunity. The rigorously defined nature of infectious vaccines contrasts with indigenous "benign or health-promoting microbiomes" but they may converge. A "microbial Neolithic revolution" is a possible future in which human microbial-associations are understood and managed analogously to the macro-agriculture of plants and animals. Tradeoffs need to be framed in order to understand health-promoting potentials of benign, and/or health-promoting microbiomes and infectious vaccines while also discouraging pathogens. Super-spreaders are currently defined as individuals who play an outsized role in the contagion of infectious disease. A key unanswered question is whether the super-spreader concept may apply similarly to health-promoting microbes. The complex interactions of individual rights, community health, pathogen contagion, the spread of benign, and of health-promoting microbiomes including infectious vaccines require study. Advancing the detailed understanding of heterogeneity in microbial spread is very likely to yield important insights relevant to public health.

Healthcare professionals' understanding of the legislation governing research involving adults lacking mental capacity in England and Wales: a national survey

OBJECTIVE

To examine health and social care professionals' understanding of the legislation governing research involving adults lacking mental capacity in England and Wales.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted using a series of vignettes. Participants were asked to select the legally authorised decision-maker in each scenario and provide supporting reasons. Responses were compared with existing legal frameworks and analysed according to their level of concordance.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-seven professionals participated. Levels of discordance between responses and the legal frameworks were high across all five scenarios (76%-82%). Nearly half of the participants (46%) provided responses that were discordant in all scenarios. Only two participants (2%) provided concordant responses across all five scenarios.

DISCUSSION

Participants demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the legal frameworks, the locus of authority and the legal basis for decision-making. The findings raise concern about the accessibility of research for those who lack capacity, the ability to conduct research involving such groups and the impact on the evidence base for their care.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to examine health and social care professionals' knowledge and understanding of the dual legal frameworks in the UK. Health and social care professionals' understanding and attitudes towards research involving adults with incapacity may warrant further in-depth exploration. The findings from this survey suggest that greater training and education is required.

Research investments for UK infectious disease research 1997-2013: A systematic analysis of awards to UK institutions alongside national burden of disease

INTRODUCTION

Infectious disease remains a significant burden in the UK and the focus of significant amounts of research investment each year. The Research Investments in Global Health study has systematically assessed levels of funding for infection research, and here considers investment alongside UK burden of individual infectious diseases.

METHODS

The study included awards to UK institutions between 1997 and 2013 that were related to infectious disease. Awards related to global health projects were excluded here. UK burden data (mortality, years lived with disability, and disability adjusted life years) was sourced from the Global Burden of Disease study (IHME, USA). Awards were categorised by pathogen, disease, disease area and by type of science along the research pipeline (pre-clinical, phase I-III trials, product development, public health, cross-disciplinary research). New metrics present relative levels of funding by comparing sum investment with measures of disease burden.

RESULTS

There were 5685 relevant awards comprising investment of £2.4 billion. By disease, HIV received most funding (£369.7m; 15.6% of the total investment). Pre-clinical science was the predominant type of science (£1.6 billion, 68.7%), with the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) the largest funder (£714.8 million, 30.1%). There is a broad temporal trend to increased fundingper annum. Antimicrobial resistance received (£102.8 million, 4.2%), whilst sepsis received £23.6 million (1.0%). Compared alongside disease burden, acute hepatitis C and measles typically were relatively well-funded, whilst pneumonia, syphilis and gonorrhoea were poorly-funded.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK has a broad research portfolio across a wide range of infectious diseases and disciplines. There are notable strengths including HIV, some respiratory infections and in pre-clinical science, though there was less funding for UK-relevant trials and public health research. Compared to the UK burden of disease, syphilis, gonorrhoea and pneumonia appear relatively neglected. Investment analyses can assist support policymakers to increase the equity of the UK R&D landscape.

Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: the impact of research regulation on 'evidence biased' medicine

BACKGROUND

Society is failing in its moral obligation to improve the standard of healthcare provided to vulnerable populations, such as people who lack decision making capacity, by a misguided paternalism that seeks to protect them by excluding them from medical research. Uncertainties surround the basis on which decisions about research participation is made under dual regulatory regimes, which adds further complexity. Vulnerable individuals' exclusion from research as a result of such regulation risks condemning such populations to poor quality care as a result of 'evidence biased' medicine.

MAIN TEXT

This paper explores the research regulation provisions for proxy decision making for those unable to provide informed consent for themselves, and the subsequent legal and practical difficulties for decision-makers. There are two separate regulatory regimes governing research involving adults who lack capacity to consent in England and Wales. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 governs how incapacitated adults can be involved in research, however clinical trials of medicinal products are separately regulated by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. There are significant differences under these dual regimes in the provisions for those lacking capacity to participate in medical research. The level of risk permitted differs, with a greater requirement for justification for participation in a clinical trial than other types of research. Who acts as proxy decision maker, how much information is provided to the person lacking capacity, and whether they retain the power of veto also significantly differs.

CONCLUSION

The development of two separate regulatory regimes has resulted in significant differences between the provisions for clinical trials and other forms of research, and from usual medical practice. The resulting uncertainty has reinforced the tendency of those approving and conducting research to exclude adults lacking capacity to avoid difficult decisions about seeking consent for their participation. Future developments, such as the incoming EU Regulations, may address some of these differences, however the justification and level of risk permitted requires review to ensure that requirements are appropriate and proportionate to the burdens and risks for the individual, and also to the benefits for the wider population represented.