Volunteer research subjects' experience of participation in research on a novel diagnostic technology for breast cancer

Facilitators and Barriers to Participating in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Psychological Therapy for Substance Use

Research involving substance users with psychosis has high refusal and attrition rates. Understanding participants' experiences of research participation is therefore important. Twenty-two cannabis users with schizophrenia spectrum disorders were recruited. They were involved in a randomized controlled trial exploring the effectiveness of motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy. Semistructured interviews were conducted, and their responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis identified facilitators such as therapeutic benefit, knowledge about medical conditions, awareness of own drug habits, helping others, confidentiality, rapport with researchers, desiring social contact, and views of significant others. Barriers identified were cognitive challenge, amount of assessments, duration, and discussions about the past. Based on these insights, we recommend informing participants about clinical equipoise, confidentiality, and demands of the study; minimizing demands on participants; acknowledging participants' efforts; involving potential participants' significant others during recruitment; advertising research as an opportunity to help; and training researchers in building rapport.

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding

BACKGROUND

Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined.

DESIGN

A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with AUB - defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding - and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman's assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Why do people participate in epidemiological research?

Many assumptions are made about public willingness to participate in epidemiological research, yet few empirical studies have been conducted to ascertain whether such assumptions are correct. Our qualitative study of the public and of expert stakeholders leads us to suggest that people are generally prepared to participate in epidemiological research, particularly if it is conducted by a trusted public institution such as a government health department, charity, or university. However, there is widespread community distrust of research conducted or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Individuals are prompted to take part if the study concerns an illness they or a family member or friend have personally experienced or if they believe the research will confer a widespread public benefit. Preferences vary about the mode of contact for the research to be conducted. Willingness to participate in telephone surveys has decreased in recent years, and this may be a consequence of an increase in calls to homes by telemarketers and market researchers. Participants also stressed the importance of knowing where their names and contact details were sourced and suggested that this information be available to prospective study participants as a matter of course in the first approach or letter. We provide valuable information to epidemiologists in designing studies.

Exploring participant experiences of research after traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVE

To explore peoples' perceptions and experiences of taking part in research following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and identify the factors that influence research participation.

METHODS

A total of 30 people (15 who had participated in research following a TBI and 15 who had previously declined or not been offered the opportunity to take part), were asked about their perceptions and experiences of research in a semi-structured qualitative interview. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the qualitative description approach.

RESULTS

Participants perceptions and experiences of research were strongly influenced by the researcher, the practicalities of taking part, including the timing and relevance of research, and perceived end results, such as access to a new treatment or reimbursement for their time.

CONCLUSION

People want to be empowered to make their own decisions about research participation following a TBI. The findings have implications for research procedures and researchers working in the field of brain injury and recommendations to enhance the research experience are proposed.

Ethics is for human subjects too: participant perspectives on responsibility in health research

Despite the significant literature as well as energy devoted to ethical review of research involving human subjects, little attention has been given to understanding the experiences of those who volunteer as human subjects. Why and how do they decide to participate in research? Is research participation viewed as a form of social responsibility or as a way of obtaining individual benefits? What if anything do research subjects feel they are owed for participation? And what do they feel that they owe the researcher? Drawing on in-depth individual interviews conducted in 2006 and 2007 with 41 subjects who participated in a variety of types of health research in Canada, this paper focuses on subject perspectives on responsibility in research. Highlighting the range of ways that subjects describe their involvement in research and commitments to being a 'good' subject, we present a typology of narratives that sheds new light on the diverse meanings of research participation. These narratives are not mutually exclusive or prescriptive but are presented as ideal types typifying a set of circumstances and values. As such, they collectively illuminate a range of motivations expressed by human subjects as well as potential sources of vulnerability. The typology adds a new dimension to the literature in this area and has significant implications for researchers seeking more human-subject centred approaches to research recruitment and retention, as well as research ethics boards trying to better anticipate the perspectives of prospective participants.

Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences

INTRODUCTION

Participants' perceptions of their research experiences provide valuable measures of ethical treatment, yet no validated instruments exist to measure these experiences. We conducted focus groups of research participants and professionals as the initial step in developing a validated instrument.

METHODS

Research participants enrolled in 12 focus groups, consisting of: (1) individuals with disorders undergoing interventions; (2) in natural history studies; or (3) healthy volunteers. Research professionals participated in six separate groups of: (1) institutional review board members, ethicists, and Research Subject Advocates; (2) research nurses/coordinators; or (3) investigators. Focus groups used standard methodologies.

RESULTS

Eighty-five participants and 29 professionals enrolled at eight academic centers. Altruism and personal relevance of the research were commonly identified motivators; financial compensation was less commonly mentioned. Participants were satisfied with informed consent processes but disappointed if not provided test results, or study outcomes. Positive relationships with research teams were valued highly. Research professionals were concerned about risks, undue influence, and informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants join studies for varied, complex reasons, notably altruism and personal relevance. They value staff relationships, health gains, new knowledge, and compensation, and expect professionalism and good organization. On the basis of these insights, we propose specific actions to enhance participant recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

Participating in research: exploring participation and engagement in a study of self-management for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

With growing emphasis on the importance of scientific evidence through clinical trials, qualitative studies have been used to deepen our understanding of research from participants' perspectives. For people with a chronic illness, research participation could represent an additional impost on lives already overwhelmed with medical and care issues, and little is known about participants' motivations when the research requires them to think differently about their illness and participate over an extended period. We interviewed participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease participating in a trial of a chronic disease self-management (CDSM) program. Our finding that people participate in research for altruistic reasons has similarities with other studies. We then extend our understanding of why people participate to explore how they participate. We argue that motivation based on dominant voluntaristic or altruistic values can be problematic for researchers attempting to demonstrate the benefits of CDSM strategies.