Community-based recruitment of patients with COPD into clinical research

Assessment of patient centredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED): protocol of a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

The impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Community-based recruitment for clinical trials poses the need for social and ethical considerations

OBJECTIVE

This article's objective was to describe the processes, strategies, and challenges of community-based recruitment to complement hospital-based recruitment for a global clinical outcomes trial on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

To increase the subject recruitment for the clinical research, field staff were trained on community-based recruitment strategies and activities. Courtesy calls and coordination with community organizations were done before recruitment activities. House-to-house interviews using patient referral checklist, lay fora on COPD, and spirometry camps identified eligible participants in five sites in the Philippines.

RESULTS

Of 3,202 individuals interviewed, 27% potentially eligible were referred to hospital sites. Of 55% who were successfully screened, 9% were randomized. Courtesy calls and endorsements identified potential recruits. Issues related to communication, work, health condition, and family members' encouragement affected participation. Complexity of the eligibility criteria contributed to the high screen failure rates. Enabling full subject protection entitlements before informed consent taking was one of the ethical issues identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Community-based recruitment may increase the number of subjects for clinical trials depending on the complexity of the requirements. Adopting a community-based recruitment strategy must be decided at the planning stage for efficient coordination of activities. Social preparation should consider socioeconomic and cultural factors. Current ethical guidelines and regulations indirectly address issues on community-based recruitment.

Care in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (CAROL): a randomised trial in general practice

Disease management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is complex and shortcomings in general practice care for COPD are common. A care bundle is a disease management aid used as a reminder and for steering specific elements of care. Our objectives were to test whether a COPD care bundle delivered to general practitioners (GPs) and practice assistants increases the implementation of key elements of COPD care.

The study was a cluster-randomised clinical trial, with 1:1 randomisation of GPs and a 1-year follow-up. The intervention introduced a COPD care bundle and aimed at enhancing collaboration between GPs and practice assistants. The control group continued usual care. The primary outcome measure was the composite score from nine key elements of COPD care measured at the patient level.

We enrolled 35 GPs and 216 patients with a median age of 69 years, 59% female, 69% Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group A or B. After 1 year, the between-group difference in change of the primary outcome measure was +2.2 (95% CI +1.5– +2.9) in favour of the intervention group. The intervention was associated with significantly higher implementation rates in seven out of nine key elements of care.

Disease management using a COPD care bundle increased the implementation of key elements of COPD care in general practice.