Dissemination of trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic clinical trials: an audit of trial investigators intentions

Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The intent of plain-language resources (PLRs) reporting medical research information is to advance health literacy among the general public and enable them to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Regulatory mandates coupled with academic and industry initiatives have given rise to an increasing volume of PLRs summarizing medical research information. However, there is significant variability in the quality, format, readability, and dissemination channels for PLRs. In this scoping review, we identify current practices, guidance, and barriers in developing and disseminating PLRs reporting medical research information to the general public including patients and caregivers. We also report on the PLR preferences of these intended audiences.

METHODS

A literature search of three bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and three clinical trial registries (NIH, EMA, ISRCTN registry) was performed. Snowball searches within reference lists of primary articles were added. Articles with PLRs or reporting topics related to PLRs use and development available between January 2017 and June 2023 were identified. Evidence mapping and synthesis were used to make qualitative observations. Identified PLRs were quantitatively assessed, including temporal annual trends, availability by field of medicine, language, and publisher types.

RESULTS

A total of 9116 PLRs were identified, 9041 from the databases and 75 from clinical trial registries. The final analysis included 6590 PLRs from databases and 72 from registries. Reported barriers to PLR development included ambiguity in guidance, lack of incentives, and concerns of researchers writing for the general public. Available guidance recommendations called for greater dissemination, increased readability, and varied content formats. Patients preferred visual PLRs formats (e.g., videos, comics), which were easy to access on the internet and used short jargon-free text. In some instances, older audiences and more educated readers preferred text-only PLRs. Preferences among the general public were mostly similar to those of patients. Psychology, followed by oncology, showed the highest number of PLRs, predominantly from academia-sponsored research. Text-only PLRs were most commonly available, while graphical, digital, or online formats were less available. Preferred dissemination channels included paywall-free journal websites, indexing on PubMed, third-party websites, via email to research participants, and social media.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review maps current practices, recommendations, and patients' and the general public's preferences for PLR development and dissemination. The results suggest that making PLRs available to a wider audience by improving nomenclature, accessibility, and providing translations may contribute to empowerment and SDM. Minimizing variability among available guidance for PLR development may play an important role in amplifying the value and impact of these resources.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Return of participant-level clinical trial results to participants: pilot of a simplified centralised approach

OBJECTIVES

Public access databases such as clinicaltrials.gov achieve dissemination of clinical trial design and aggregated study results. However, return of participant-level data is rarely done. A key barrier includes the proprietary ownership of data by the sponsor. Additionally, investigators may not have access to centralised data, and per International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice, must maintain the confidentiality of participants. This study piloted an approach to return both individual and aggregate clinical trial data to parents of children participating in a series of open-label clinical trials.

SETTING AND DESIGN

A small biotech company obtained central ethics approval (centralised institutional review board [IRB], non-exempt). The study was advertised via parent advocacy groups. Parents of trial participants were offered the option to contact an employee (coordinator) within the company, requesting return of their child's study results. Ethics approval covered participation in six countries. The study focused on the sequential clinical trials of vamorolone VBP15-002 (NCT02760264) and VBP15-003 (NCT02760277) (post-results).

INTERVENTIONS

Contact initiated by the parent enabled the coordinator to obtain informed consent (and separate General Data Protection Regulations consent), with phone translation when needed. Using date of birth and study site location provided by the parent, the data manager reported the participant number to the coordinator. The coordinator retrieved and compiled data, along with an aggregate summary, which was mailed via a password protected and encrypted memory device to the parent. Prereturn and postreturn surveys were sent to consented parents (n=19; 40% of 48 total trial participants) and investigators.

RESULTS

Prereturn surveys indicated a request for as much data as offered, in all formats offered. Postreturn survey showed high satisfaction with the process and data returned. Survey of the physician site investigators (n=10; 100% participation of investigators) voiced general satisfaction with the process, with some reservations.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates an innovative, cost-effective, centralised and labour conservative approach to return of participant-level and aggregate data to participants in studies.

Understanding implementation of findings from trial method research: a mixed methods study applying implementation frameworks and behaviour change models

BACKGROUND

Trial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units.

METHODS

Three stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel.

RESULTS

A total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Several key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

Return of aggregate results to study participants: Facilitators, barriers, and recommendations

Background

Most researchers and study participants believe that the summary, or aggregate, results of health research should be returned to study participants. However, researchers often do not return aggregate results. A better understanding of the impediments to results return could support improvements in this practice.

Methods

This qualitative study convened eight virtual focus groups, four with investigators and four with patient partners from research studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). In total, 23 investigators and 20 partners participated. We explored perspectives, experiences, influences, and recommendations related to aggregate results return.

Results

Focus group participants described the ethical importance of returning aggregate results, as well as the benefits to study participants. They also noted important impediments to results return, emphasizing IRB and logistical challenges and describing a lack of support for the practice both on the part of institutions and the field at large. Participants highlighted the value of patients and caregivers' perspectives and contributions to results return, which focused on returning the most relevant findings through effective channels and formats. They further emphasized the importance of planning and identified resources that could support results return.

Conclusion

Researchers, funders, and the field can better facilitate results return by promoting standardized processes in research, such as the earmarking of funds for results return and inclusion of results returns milestones in research plans. More intentional policies, infrastructures, and resources that support results return may lead to more widespread return of study results to those who make these studies possible.

Information about dissemination of trial results in patient information leaflets for clinicals trials in the UK and Ireland: The what and the when

Introduction

Complete and understandable information is vital for informed consent and this includes how and when potential participants can expect to receive trial results. Informing participants during informed consent about the sharing of trial results is important for addressing participants’ needs, ensuring adherence to regulatory guidance, and in fulfilling a moral obligation.

Methods

Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) were collated from across the UK and Ireland. Trial characteristics and data on disseminating trial results was extracted. Analysis included descriptive statistics and a directed content analysis approach. The content analysis framework was informed by regulatory guidance on PIL content and existing research on dissemination of trial results. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary as appropriate.

Results

238 PILs from 178 trials were analysed. Of the 238 PILs, 74% (n = 176) provided information on sharing results with participants, 70% (n = 123) of which described passive methods of disseminating results that require active engagement from the trial participants, i.e., effort required by the participant to seek the results. The majority (90%) of PILs included more than one proposed mode of dissemination that largely targeted healthcare professionals rather than participants. Only 8% of PILs specified a time period for when results could be expected, 47% did not specify a time period (e.g. at end of trial), and 45% included no information on when trial results would be available.

Conclusion

This study found that majority of the PILs included did include some information about dissemination of trial results. However, modes of dissemination tended to target researchers and clinicians rather than participants and information on when results would be available was often lacking. The findings highlight the need for further research that includes stakeholder input to identify what information on results summaries participants need at the point of making a decision about trial participation.

What, how, when and who of trial results summaries for trial participants: stakeholder-informed guidance from the RECAP project

OBJECTIVE

To generate stakeholder informed evidence to support recommendations for trialists to implement the dissemination of results summaries to participants.

DESIGN

A multiphase mixed-methods triangulation design involving Q-methodology, content analysis, focus groups and a coproduction workshop (the REporting Clinical trial results Appropriately to Participants project).

SETTING

Phase III effectiveness trials.

PARTICIPANTS

A range of participants were included from ongoing and recently completed trials, public contributors, trialists, sponsors, research funders, regulators, ethics committee members.

RESULTS

Fewer than half of the existing trial result summaries contained information on the clinical implications of the study results, an item deemed to be of high importance to participants in the Q-methodology study. Priority of inclusion of a thank you message varied depending on whether considering results for individuals or populations. The need for personally responsive modes of sharing trial result summaries was highlighted as important. Ideally, participants should be the first to know of the results with regard to the timing of sharing results summaries but given this can be challenging it is therefore important to manage expectations. In addition to patients, it was identified that it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders when developing trial results summaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Results summaries for trial participants should cover four core questions: (1) What question the trial set out to answer?; (2) What did the trial find?; (3) What effect have the trial results had and how will they change National Health Service/treatment?; and (4) How can I find out more? Trial teams should develop appropriately resourced plans and consult patient partners and trial participants on how 'best' to share key messages with regard to content, mode, and timing. The study findings provide trial teams with clear guidance on the core considerations of the 'what, how, when and who' with regard to sharing results summaries.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials (PoINT): exploring patient and public partners experiences and identifying stakeholder priorities

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners' experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in.

METHODS

The study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system.

RESULTS

In stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: "Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects", "Identity and roles", "Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects". Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review

Background

There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.

Results

Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.

Conclusions

This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x.

Making the patient voice heard in a research consortium: experiences from an EU project (IMI-APPROACH)

APPROACH is an EU-wide research consortium with the goal to identify different subgroups of knee osteoarthritis to enable future differential diagnosis and treatment. During a 2-year clinical study images, biomarkers and clinical data are collected from people living with knee osteoarthritis and data are analyzed to confirm patterns that can indicate such different subgroups. A Patient Council (PC) has been set up at project initiation and consists of five people from Norway, The Netherlands and UK. Initially, this group of individuals had to learn how to effectively work with each other and with the researchers. Today, the PC is a strong team that is fully integrated in the consortium and acknowledged by researchers as an important sounding board. The article describes this journey looking at formal processes of involvement - organizational structure, budget, meetings - and more informal processes such as building relationships and changing researcher perceptions. It describes how the PC helped improve the experience and engagement of study participants by providing input to the clinical protocol and ensuring effective communication (e.g. through direct interactions with participants and newsletters). Furthermore, the PC is helping with dissemination of results and project advocacy, and overall provides the patient perspective to researchers. Additionally, the authors experienced and describe the intangible benefits such as a shift in researcher attitudes and a sense of community and purpose for PC members. Importantly, learnings reported in this article also include the challenges, such as effective integration of the PC with researchers' work in the early phase of the project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Library of Medicine, NCT03883568 , retrospectively registered 21 March 2019.

Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials: a mixed methods theory-informed survey of trialists' current practices, barriers and facilitators

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to find out if trialists involve patients and the public in numerical aspects of trials, how and what are the barriers and facilitators to doing it.

DESIGN

We developed a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We used a mixed methods approach to analyse the data and to identify important domains.

SETTING

Online survey targeting UK-based trial units.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders working in UK-based clinical trials, 18 years old or over, understand English and agree to take part in the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Trialists' behaviour of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects of trials and its determinants.

RESULTS

We included 187 respondents. Majority were female (70%), trial managers (67%) and involved public and patient partners in numerical aspects of trials (60%). We found lack of knowledge, trialists' perception of public and patient partners' skills, capabilities and motivations, scarce resources, lack of reinforcement, and lack of guidance were barriers to involving public and patient partners in numerical aspects of trials. Positive beliefs about consequences were an incentive to doing it.

CONCLUSIONS

More training, guidance and funding can help trialists involve patient and public partners in numerical aspects, although they were uncertain about public and patient partners' motivation to be involved. Future research should focus on identifying public and patient partners' motivations and develop strategies to improve the communication of numerical aspects.