Trial participation as avoidance strategy: a qualitative study

"There is nothing better than participating in this study": Living the PAPAartis cardiovascular randomised controlled trial

Qualitative research can bring new dimensions of understanding decision-making process in clinical trials. Participating in a randomized clinical trial requires patients to accept complex information and make decisions in a context of uncertainty. It becomes especially complicated in the case of serious diseases in which the treatment itself implies unknown risks. This study examines these issues in the context of the PAPAartis randomized clinical trial, which aims to prevent spinal cord injuries that can occur as an adverse event following complex surgical repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysm. In this study, we accessed a group of 16 patients participating in the trial and, through in-depth interviews, sought to understand the decision-making process when taking part in the trial and their experience of it. Our results showed that patients participated for different reasons: due to trust in doctors, the hope of having a better treatment or for altruistic and collaborative reasons with science. Many patients felt they did not fully understand the extraneous information provided about the study and the complex nature of the procedure. Avoidance of paraplegia played a fundamental role in the decision to participate in this trial. Family support and the socioeconomic conditions of the patients influenced the recovery process after surgery.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on stress urinary incontinence in women for the development of a Core Outcome Set: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Given the high variation of perceptions of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), qualitative meta-synthesis in this field appears warranted. We aimed to synthesize evidence on women's experiences of SUI by analyzing qualitative data.

METHODS

A literature search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was performed by a CHORUS Working Group, from inception to August 2020. Qualitative studies on women's perspectives on SUI were included. Thematic analysis was used as a conceptual approach to analyze the data and develop a set of overarching themes. The quality of studies was assessed based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included. Six themes encompassing women's perspectives on SUI emerged: experiencing SUI, awareness of SUI, treatments for SUI, sexuality, communication, and psychosocial effects. The quality appraisal of the studies showed good coherence.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed six overarching themes, of which treatment had the highest prevalence. Assessment of women's perceptions of SUI in the context of a qualitative meta-synthesis may inform policy and practice around this condition, may guide and help set research priorities, and will ideally contribute to the development of a Core Outcome Set for SUI.