Parental consent to participation in a randomised trial in children: associated child, family, and physician factors

Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the US

OBJECTIVE

To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation.

RESULTS

Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically.

METHODS

We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Parental Views of Facilitators and Barriers to Research Participation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low enrollment within pediatric research increases the cost of research, decreases generalizability, and threatens to exacerbate existing health disparities. To assess barriers and facilitators to pediatric research participation and evaluate differences by enrollment status.

METHODS

Data Sources include PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. Study selection include peer reviewed articles that contained information related to facilitators and barriers to the parental decision whether to enroll their child in research and included the views of parents who declined. We extracted barriers and facilitators to research, enrollment status, and study characteristics, including study design, quality, and patient population.

RESULTS

Seventy articles were included for analysis. Facilitators of participation included: benefits, trust, support of research, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common facilitators within those categories included health benefit to child (N = 39), altruism (N = 30), and the importance of research (N = 26). Barriers to participation included: study-related concerns, burdens of participation, lack of trust, general research concerns, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common barriers within those categories included risks to child (N = 46), burdens of participation (N = 35), and the stress of the decision (N = 29). We had a limited ability to directly compare by enrollment status and no ability to analyze interactions between facilitators and barriers. We only included studies written in English.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified key facilitators and barriers to research participation in pediatrics. The findings from this review may guide researchers aiming to create interventions to improve the parental experience of recruitment for pediatric studies and to optimize enrollment rates.

Consent Rates Reported in Published Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the average reported consent rate for published pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether this rate varies by trial characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN

A review of pediatric RCTs published in Medline in 2009, 2010, or 2015 was performed. Secondary analyses of prior trials, trials including adults, trials not requiring consent, or trials with missing or unclear consent data were excluded. Consent rate was defined as the number of patients enrolled divided by number of eligible patients where families were approached. Random effects meta-regression was conducted to determine the weighted average consent rate.

RESULTS

Of 2347 trials identified, 1651 were excluded. An additional 418 of 696 (60%) were excluded because the consent rate was missing or unclear. The average consent rate for 278 included RCTs was 82.6% (95% CI, 80.3%-84.8%) and was higher for vaccination compared with behavioral trials and for industry-funded compared with National Institutes of Health-funded or other government-funded trials. The average consent rate was <70% for 26% of included trials. Of these trials, US trials (28/77 [36.4%]) had a higher probability of a consent rate of <70% than non-US studies (35/64 [21.3%]) and multinational (9/37 [24.3%]) studies. There was slight variation by funding category.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the average consent rate for published trials was reasonably high, approximately one-quarter of trials had consent rates of <70%. Consent rates reporting has improved over time, but remains suboptimal. Our findings should assist with the planning of future pediatric RCTs, although consent data from unpublished trials are also needed.

Application of protection motivation theory to clinical trial enrolment for pediatric chronic conditions

BACKGROUND

Parents of children living with chronic but manageable conditions hope for improved therapies or cures, including Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). Multiple pediatric clinical trials for ATMPs are underway, but the risk profile of ATMPs for chronic conditions is largely unknown and likely different than for terminal pediatric illnesses. Applying Protection Motivation Theory modified to the context of pediatric ATMP clinical trial enrollment, our study analyses information needs of parents of children living with chronic manageable conditions: Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) or Inherited Retinal Diseases (IRD).

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 parents of children living with T1D and 14 parents of children living with an IRD about: a) family background and the diagnostic experience; b) awareness of gene and stem cell therapy research and clinical trials for T1D and IRD; c) information sources on trials and responses to that information; d) attitudes to trial participation, including internationally; e) understanding of trial purpose and process; and f) any experiences with trial participation. We then discussed a pediatric ATMP clinical trial information sheet, which we developed with experts. We applied directed qualitative content analysis, based on PMT, to examine the information preferences of parents in deciding whether to enrol their children in stem cell or gene therapy clinical trials.

RESULTS

Parents balanced trial risks against their child's ability to cope with the chronic condition. The better the child's ability to cope with vision impairment or insulin management, the less likely parents were to assume trial risks. Conversely, if the child struggled with his/her vision loss, parents were more likely to be interested in trial participation, but only if the risks were low and likelihood for potential benefit was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Fear of adverse events as part of threat appraisal was the predominant consideration for parents in considering whether to enroll their child living with a manageable, chronic condition in a pediatric clinical trial of an ATMP. This consideration outweighed potential benefits and severity of their child's condition. Parents called for available safety data and fulsome communication processes that would enable them to make informed decisions about clinical trial enrolment on behalf of their children.

Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to pediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be a challenge, with ethical issues surrounding assent and consent. Pediatric RCTs frequently recruit from a smaller pool of patients making adequate recruitment difficult. One factor which influences recruitment and retention in pediatric trials is patient and parent preferences for treatment.

PURPOSE

To systematically review pediatric RCTs reporting treatment preference.

METHODS

Database searches included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.Qualitative or quantitative papers were eligible if they reported: pediatric population, (0-17 years) recruited to an RCT and reported treatment preference for all or some of the participants/parents in any clinical area. Data extraction included: Number of eligible participants consenting to randomisation arms, number of eligible patients not randomised because of treatment preference, and any further information reported on preferences (e.g., if parent preference was different from child).

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. The number of eligible families declining participation in an RCT because of preference for treatment varied widely (between 2 and 70%) in feasibility, conventional and preference trial designs. Some families consented to trial involvement despite having preferences for a specific treatment. Data relating to 'participant flow and recruitment' was not always reported consistently, therefore numbers who were lost to follow-up or withdrew due to preference could not be extracted.

CONCLUSIONS

Families often have treatment preferences which may affect trial recruitment. Whilst children appear to hold treatment preferences, this is rarely reported. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for preference and the impact preference has on RCT recruitment, retention and outcome.

Recruiting families for an intervention study to prevent second-hand smoke exposure in children

Background

We evaluated the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies used in a study aimed at eliminating/reducing second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure in Dutch children 0–13 years of age with a high risk of asthma.

Methods

The different strategies include: 1) questionnaires distributed via home addresses, physicians or schools of the children; 2) cohorts from other paediatric studies; 3) physicians working in the paediatric field (family physicians, paediatricians and Youth Health Care (YHC) physicians); and 4) advertisements in a local newsletter, at child-care facilities, and day-care centres.

Results

More than 42,782 families were approached to take part in the screening of which 3663 could be assessed for eligibility. Of these responders, 196 families met the inclusion criteria for the study. However, only 58 (one third) could be randomised in the trial, mainly because of no interest or time of the parents. The results showed that recruiting families who expose their children to SHS exposure is very challenging, which may be explained by lack of ‘recognition’ or awareness that SHS occurs in homes. The presence of asthma in the family, respiratory symptoms in the children, and even incentives did not increase parental motivation for participation in the study.

Conclusions

The recruitment process for an intervention program addressing SHS exposure in children was considerably more challenging and time consuming than anticipated. Barriers at both a parents level and a doctor’s level can be discriminated.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-0983-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Attitudes of small animal practitioners toward participation in veterinary clinical trials

OBJECTIVE To determine attitudes of small animal practitioners toward veterinary clinical trials and variables influencing their likelihood of participating in such trials. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE Small animal practitioners with membership in 1 of 2 online veterinary communities (n = 163 and 652). PROCEDURES An online survey was developed for each of 2 veterinary communities, and invitations to participate were sent via email. Each survey included questions designed to collect information on the respondents' willingness to enroll their patients in clinical trials and to recommend participation to clients for their pets. RESULTS More than 80% of respondents to each survey indicated that they spend no time in clinical research. A high proportion of respondents were likely or extremely likely to recommend clinical trial participation to clients for their pets when those trials involved treatments licensed in other countries, novel treatments, respected investigators, or sponsoring by academic institutions, among other reasons. Reasons for not recommending participation included distance, time restrictions, and lack of awareness of ongoing clinical trials; 28% of respondents indicated that they did not usually learn about such clinical trials. Most respondents (79% to 92%) rated their recommendation of a trial as important to their client's willingness to participate. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Participation in veterinary clinical trials by small animal practitioners and their clients and patients appeared low. Efforts should be increased to raise practitioner awareness of clinical trials for which patients might qualify. Specific elements of trial design were identified that could be modified to increase participation.

Sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in an ICU: a systematic review

At the design stage of a clinical trial, several assumptions have to be made. These usually include guesses about parameters that are not of direct interest but must be accounted for in the analysis of the treatment effect and also in the sample size calculation (nuisance parameters, e.g. the standard deviation or the control group event rate). We conducted a systematic review to investigate the impact of misspecification of nuisance parameters in pediatric randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units. We searched MEDLINE through PubMed. We included all publications concerning two-arm RCTs where efficacy assessment was the main objective. We included trials with pharmacological interventions. Only trials with a dichotomous or a continuous outcome were included. This led to the inclusion of 70 articles describing 71 trials. In 49 trial reports a sample size calculation was reported. Relative misspecification could be calculated for 28 trials, 22 with a dichotomous and 6 with a continuous primary outcome. The median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] overestimation was 6.9 [-12.1, 57.8]% for the control group event rate in trials with dichotomous outcomes and -1.5 [-15.3, 5.1]% for the standard deviation in trials with continuous outcomes. Our results show that there is room for improvement in the clear reporting of sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in ICUs. Researchers should be aware of the importance of nuisance parameters in study design and in the interpretation of the results.