Survey of Awareness and Perceptions of Canadians on the Benefits and Risks of Clinical Trials

Patient and Public Perceptions in Canada About Decentralized and Hybrid Clinical Trials: "It's About Time we Bring Trials to People"

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patient and the public perspectives on decentralized and hybrid clinical trials in Canada.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey (English and French) promoted on social media to understand perspectives of people in Canada about decentralized and hybrid clinical trials. The survey had two sections. We co-produced this project entirely with patient, caregiver, and family partners.

RESULTS

The survey had 284 (14 French) individuals who started or completed Section 1, and 180 (16 French) individuals who started or completed Section 2. People prefer to have options to participate in clinical trials where aspects are decentralized or hybridized. 79% of respondents preferred to have options related to study visits. There were concerns about handling adverse events or potential complications in decentralized trials, however, communication options such as a dedicated contact person for participants was deemed helpful. Most respondents were amenable to informed consent being done at a satellite site closer to home or via technology and were split on privacy concerns about this. Most preferred travel to a site within an hour, depending on what the trial was for or its impact on quality of life. Due to the response rate, we were unable to explore associations with gender, age, health status, geography, ethnicity, and prior clinical trial participation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate an openness in Canada to participating in trials that decentralize or hybridize some aspects. These trials are perceived to provide benefits to participants and ways to increase equity and accessibility for participants.

Attitudes Toward Providing Open Access for Use of Biospecimens and Health Records: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Purpose

Biospecimen repositories and big data generated from clinical research are critically important in advancing patient-centered healthcare. However, ethical considerations arising from reusing clinical samples and health records for subsequent research pose a hurdle for big-data health research. This study aims to assess the public's opinions in Jordan toward providing blanket consent for using biospecimens and health records in research.

Participants and Methods

A cross-sectional study utilizing a self-reported questionnaire was carried out in different cities in Jordan, targeting adult participants. Outcome variables included awareness of clinical research, participation in clinical research, and opinions toward providing open access to clinical samples and records for research purposes. Descriptive analysis was utilized for reporting the outcome as frequency (percentages) out of the total responses. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the association between independent variables and the outcome of interest.

Results

A total of 1033 eligible participants completed the questionnaire. Although the majority (90%) were aware of clinical research, only 24% have ever participated in this type of research. About half (51%) agreed on providing blanket consent for the use of clinical samples, while a lower percentage (43%) agreed on providing open access to their health records. Privacy concerns and lack of trust in the researcher were cited as major barriers to providing blanket consent. Participation in clinical research and having health insurance were predictors for providing open access to clinical samples and records.

Conclusion

The lack of public trust in Jordan toward data privacy is evident from this study. Therefore, a governance framework is needed to raise and maintain the public's trust in big-data research that warrants the future reuse of clinical samples and records. As such, the current study provides valuable insights that will inform the design of effective consent protocols required in data-intensive health research.

Motivators and barriers towards clinical research participation: A population-based survey from an Arab MENA country

Jordan was the first Arab country to enact clinical research regulations. The country has a well-flourished pharmaceutical industry that leans heavily on clinical research (CR) for drug development and post-marketing surveillance. In this cross-sectional study, we sought to assess the public's awareness and attitude towards CR as well as their perceived motivators and barriers to CR participation. A population-based, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the general public in Jordan. Among the 1061 participants in this survey, 74% reported being aware of CR. The majority (70%) agreed to the role of CR in health promotion. Online information and healthcare staff were the two main sources of CR information for the participants. About 25% of the participants received prior invitations to participate in CR with 21% agreeing to participate. However, most participants of the current study (63%) were willing to participate in future CR. Contributing to science, benefiting others, and promoting one's own health were the top motivating factors for participating in CR; while time constraints, fear of research procedure, and lack of interest were the most cited reasons for rejecting participation. Filling out questionnaire surveys, donating blood samples, and participating in physical examinations were the main CR contributions of the participants. Nearly 31% of the participants believed that CR is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner, while 57% did not have an opinion regarding the same matter. In addition, 49% and 44% were neutral with regards to the degree of harm and confidentiality posed by CR. While only 27% disagreed that CR exposes participants to some form of harm, 48% either strongly agreed (15%) or agreed (33%) that it maintains high level of confidentiality for participants. The current study provides insight into the public's perception of CR in Jordan as well as its motivating factors and perceived barriers towards participating in CR. We envisage to utilize this insight as an aid in the design of vigilant future awareness campaigns and recruitment strategies.

Assessing Multiple Factors Affecting Minority Participation in Clinical Trials: Development of the Clinical Trials Participation Barriers Survey

The purpose of this review is to analyze factors that influence individuals' decisions to participate in clinical trials focusing on racial and ethnic disparities that exist in clinical trials. These factors are then used to develop a survey that may be used in a clinical setting to further understand specific factors affecting participation. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was carried out for publications from 2010 to 2021 using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. After reviewing the data, the predominant factors that were encountered in the search were then commented upon and reviewed to create an evidence-based questionnaire. ​​​​Using the comprehensive search, factors that affect clinical trial participation were identified. These factors were then used to create a comprehensive, evidence-based questionnaire to be implemented in a clinical setting to conduct and analyze the factors impacting participation in clinical trials. ​​​​​​​Understanding the factors that primarily impact an individual's decisions to participate or not participate in a clinical trial allow researchers to implement changes to decrease the hesitancy regarding participation. 

Distinctive aspects of consent in pilot and feasibility studies

Prior to a main randomized clinical trial, investigators often carry out a pilot or feasibility study in order to test certain trial processes or estimate key statistical parameters, so as to optimize the design of the main trial and/or determine whether it can feasibly be run. Pilot studies reflect the design of the intended main trial, whereas feasibility studies may not do so, and may not involve allocation to different treatments. Testing relative clinical effectiveness is not considered an appropriate aim of pilot or feasibility studies. However, consent is no less important than in a main trial as a means of morally legitimizing the investigator's actions. Two misperceptions are central to consent in clinical studies-therapeutic misconception (a tendency to conflate research and therapy) and therapeutic misestimation (a tendency to overestimate possible benefits and/or underestimate possible harms associated with participation). These phenomena may take a distinctive form in pilot and feasibility studies, owing to potential participants' likely prior unfamiliarity with the nature and purposes of such studies. Thus, participants may confuse the aims of a pilot or feasibility study (developing or optimizing trial design and processes) with those of a main trial (testing treatment effectiveness) and base consent on this misconstrual. Similarly, a misunderstanding of the ability of pilot and feasibility studies to provide information that will inform clinical care, or the underdeveloped nature of interventions included in such studies, may lead to inaccurate assessments of the objective possibility of benefit, and weaken the epistemic basis of consent accordingly. Equipoise may also be particularly challenging to grasp in the context of a pilot study. The consent process in pilot and feasibility studies requires a particular focus, and careful communication, if it is to carry the appropriate moral weight. There are corresponding implications for the process of ethical approval.

Perceptions Towards Medical Research Participation: A Study from Jordan

PURPOSE

Progress and development in medical researches require the participation of volunteers in such research, but unfortunately, the participation rate is low. This study aimed to assess Jordanian public perceptions towards participation in medical research and to understand motivators and barriers that may affect their participation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study that was conducted from December 2019 to February 2020. Adults from the public were invited to participate in this paper-based survey. The survey assessed public perception (values, trust and ethics), motivators, and barriers towards participation in medical research.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2000 subjects were recruited. Around 82.3% (n = 1643) strongly agreed/agreed that medical research is important for the advancement of science. Helping the society was found to be the main motivators to participate in medical research (n = 1708, 85.4%), while time constrains (n = 1400, 70.0%), lack of opportunity (n = 1278, 63.9%), and the lack of knowledge and awareness about these researches (n = 1152, 57.6%) were among the top barriers towards the participation in medical research. Finally, results showed that previous participation in medical research was correlated with lower overall perception of values and ethics of research, and higher trust in research (p-value <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Jordanians have positive perception toward participation in medical research, which could be improved by increasing awareness, trust, and training of researchers on responsible conduct of research(RCR) in the country.

Participant perception, still a major challenge to clinical research in developing countries-A mixed methods study

Background

With the introduction of the Clinical Trial Act in 2011, Mauritius has witnessed significant progress in the running of clinical trials. Our aim was to provide insights on the perception of clinical trials among Mauritian citizens and highlight areas of opportunities to address gaps in public perception and awareness.

Population, materials and methods

A mixed study was carried out which consisted of 2 phases: a qualitative, with thematic approach followed by a quantitative study with cross-sectional design. For the qualitative study, computer literate individuals were invited to fill an unstructured, online open-ended questionnaire. Conclusions derived from the latter were used to adapt a validated questionnaire which was then distributed to 400 consented participants.

Results

There were 23 participants who responded to the online qualitative survey, which showed poor knowledge and diverse views on clinical trials. Quantitatively up to 48% of the participants were not aware of clinical trials which included people of older age group, those from low socioeconomic status and those with low literacy level (p<0.050). Majority of respondents agreed with the value of research while a minority had poor perception related to trust in research companies and conduct of clinical trials. Respondents who had previously engaged in clinical research had better knowledge and perception compared to those who did not participate in one (Odds Ratio = 1.7).

Conclusion

This novel study provided a foundation of how Mauritian citizens perceive clinical trials. Public awareness and educational programs can be created to address lack of awareness, the negative perceptions and knowledge gaps of clinical trials among Mauritian citizens.

Satisfaction and perceptions of research participants in clinical and translational studies: An urban multi-institution with CTSA

Purpose:

To examine research participants’ levels of satisfaction and perceptions and aid researchers to better engage research volunteers from all racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials. A participant satisfaction survey was developed that focused on three domains to reflect satisfaction with delivery of care, environment, and center operations. In addition, the survey contained open-ended questions to reflect overall experiences and perceptions. Two hundred and seventy-eight participants (55% African American and 29% non-Hispanic Whites) with an average age of 52 years completed the survey.

Results:

The results indicated that the majority of the participants rated their satisfaction very highly across all domains. Ninety percent stated they were very satisfied/satisfied or very strongly agreed/agreed in the three domains. Obtaining high-quality care/access to health care professionals (60%), learning more about their illness/disease (60%), and helping others (57%) were noted as important factors in choosing to participate in a trial. Regarding overall experience, majority of respondents stated that friendliness, expertise of staff, learning more about their disease, and contributing to science were important. Further, financial compensation was not a primary motivation for participation. A majority of participants stated that they would participate in future studies and would recommend a friend or a family member to participate in clinical trials.

Conclusions:

The findings indicate that the degree of satisfaction with the research staff and with the specific trial itself are important determinants for enrolling, completing a study, and for participating in future trials.