The Patient Deficit Model Overturned: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011)

Reducing Health Disparities Among African American and Black Caribbean Patients by Improving the Communication Practices of Clinical Research Coordinators

This manuscript focuses on the communication factors that affect the willingness of African Americans and Black Caribbean patients to participate in clinical trials and research studies. Low rates of research participation by members of communities of color have long been linked to health disparities. While there are many factors that contribute to low rates of accrual of African American and Black patients to clinical trials, a lack of attention to communication factors that enhance or inhibit the recruitment process is central to the problem. In this study, we describe results from the analysis of six focus groups (N = 31) consisting of African American (k = 3) and Black Caribbean (k = 3) participants. Our analyses focus on verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors and how they affect participants' willingness to participate in clinical trials. Specifically, when clinical research coordinators (CRCs) had a professional appearance, made the effort to explain a study in detail, made eye contact, took the time to listen and answer questions patiently, and gave the sense that the CRC was being truthful and transparent, patients felt respected and valued. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of the process of developing and maintaining a trusting relationship between study participants and CRCs. The results of this study will be used to develop a clinical trial communication training program designed to enhance the communication skills of clinical research coordinators who discuss research participation with African American and Caribbean Black patients.

Robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: first Polish experience

In Poland, robotic surgery is nowadays perceived as a new method of surgical treatment in endometrial cancer patients. We aim to present the first Polish group of endometrial cancer patients treated using robotic surgery. The analysis was based on 79 patients with mean age of 59.72 ± 11.709 (range 27-83) years and endometrial cancer scheduled for surgical treatment. Mean BMI was 31.38 ± 8.78 (range 19.03-65.97) kg/m2. The data were collected based on a questionnaire consisting of 19 questions concerning the patient's perception of robotic surgery before the procedure. Patients with a family history of neoplastic diseases indicate precision of movements as the most important reason for choosing robotic surgery (p = 0.0035). Patients after surgery procedures in the past named shorter hospitalization as a major benefit (p = 0.0037). Patients who chose robotic surgery for financial reasons stressed the cosmetic effect as a priority (p = 0.0319). Shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, enlarged view, and good visualization were statistically significant reasons for choosing robotic surgery (p < 0.05). Women who consider work, good material status, and well-being as the most important aspects of their lives cited the cosmetic effect as a benefit of robotic surgery (p = 0.0029 vs. p = 0.0074 vs. p = 0.01745, respectively). In the follow-up after operations, no patients regretted choosing robotic surgery. Good visualization, precise movements, less blood loss, and cosmetic effects are the most frequent reasons for choosing robotic surgery. Even patients after other types of surgery in the past decided on robot-assisted radical hysterectomy because of the clear benefits of this approach.

The role of perceived expertise and trustworthiness in research study and clinical trial recruitment: Perspectives of clinical research coordinators and African American and Black Caribbean patients

This study investigates the role of source credibility on minority participant recruitment, particularly African American and Black Caribbean patients. A total of nine focus groups (N = 48 participants) were conducted with both patient groups and clinical research coordinators (CRCs). Using the elaboration likelihood model as a guiding framework for analysis, this study found that the credibility of research coordinators (or other professionals who recruit for research studies and clinical trials) was instrumental in shaping attitudes of prospective participants. The perspectives of patients and CRCs aligned closely, with few exceptions. For both groups, professionalism and professional displays (clothing, institutional artifacts) enhanced perceived expertise, a core component of credibility. Trustworthiness, another important component of credibility, was fostered through homophily between recruiter and patient, expressions of goodwill and assuaging anxiety about CRCs' financial motivations for recruitment. Additionally, CRCs believed that credibility was supported when CRCs could emphasize transparency and truthfulness in communication. The importance of these findings for the development of empirically-based training programs to improve communication practices in recruitment contexts is discussed.

Integrating qualitative interviews in drug development and the use of qualitative evidence in product labelling and health technology assessments: a review

Objective

Including qualitative research in clinical trial design is an innovative approach to understanding patients' perspective and incorporate the patient's voice in all stages of drug development and evaluation. This review aims to explore current practices, lessons learned from the literature, as well as how qualitative interviews are considered by health authorities for marketing authorization and reimbursement.

Methods

A targeted literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted in February 2022 to identify publications on qualitative methods embedded in clinical trial of pharmaceutical products. An additional search of guidelines and labeling claims of approved products regarding qualitative research was performed in various sources of grey literature.

Results

From the 24 publications and nine documents reviewed, we identified the research questions addressed with qualitative methods during clinical trials (e.g., change in quality of life, symptoms assessment, treatment benefit), preferred data collection methods (e.g., interviews), and data collection points (e.g., baseline and exit interviews). Moreover, the data from labels and HTAs demonstrate that qualitative data can play an important role in approval processes.

Conclusion

The use of in-trial interviews is still emerging and is not yet common practice. Although the industry, scientific community, regulatory agencies and HTAs are showing an increasing interest in the use of evidence generated via in-trial interviews, guidance from regulators and HTAs would be helpful. Developing new methods and technologies to address the common challenges for such interviews is key to progress.

A qualitative investigation of reasoning behind decisions to decline participation in a research intervention: A study-within-a-trial

The current study-within-a-trial explored individuals' decisions to decline participation in research trialling a chronic illness-focused therapy (i.e. multiple sclerosis). Four themes were identified from seven semi-structured interviews with participation decliners and were confirmed by the host trial's Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) panel: acknowledgement of the value of research; 'fit' of the study; misinterpretation of participant information; and 'ignorance is bliss' - discussed in light of theory and research. This study-within-a-trial extends research on trial recruitment and participation decline; while also suggesting that PPI can be utilised in both a practical and impactful manner.

Using qualitative methods in pilot and feasibility trials to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale randomised trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review published pretrial qualitative research studies and explore how their findings were used to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Dissertation Abstracts International, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO. We included all reports of pretrial qualitative data on recruitment and retention in clinical trials up to March 2018.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form that captured study aims, design, methodological approach and main findings, including barriers and facilitators to recruitment and or retention. The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis method and reported following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Confidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-five papers (connected to 31 feasibility studies) from three different countries, published between 2010 and 2017 were included. All studies were embedded in pilot or feasibility studies to inform design aspects in preparation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Twelve themes were identified as recruitment barriers and three as recruitment facilitators. Two themes were identified as barriers for retention and none as retention facilitators. The findings from qualitative research in feasibility or pilot trials are often not explicitly linked to proposed changes to the recruitment and retention strategies to be used in the future or planned full-scale trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Many trial teams do pretrial qualitative work with the aim of improving recruitment and retention in future full-scale trials. Just over half of all reports of such work do not clearly show how their findings will change the recruitment and retention strategy of the future trial. The scope of pretrial work needs to expand beyond looking for problems and also look for what might help and spend more time on retention.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff

Background

The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process.

Methods

Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically.

Results

Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources.

Conclusions

Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques.

Trial Registration

Not applicable

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1.

PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial: The IP3-PROSPECT study

Introduction

The traditional double blind RCT is the ‘gold standard’ trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort.

Results

Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT.

Conclusion

The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

A mixed-methods systematic review of patients' experience of being invited to participate in surgical randomised controlled trials

RATIONALE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are increasing. Such trials encounter challenges that are not present in RCTs of non-surgical interventions because of the nature of the intervention. Several studies have explored patients' experiences of surgical trials to improve recruitment or identify barriers and facilitators to research in this setting. Synthesizing these studies may reveal further insights or confirm whether saturation of relevant themes has been achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to understand the experiences of adults who are invited to participate in surgical RCTs.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Assessment of quality was conducted with studies given an overall quality rating of good, fair, or poor. A segregated approach was used to synthesize the data. This method included a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data. The findings of both syntheses were then integrated.

RESULTS

Thirty-four articles reporting 28 trials were included. This review found that the decision to participate in a surgical trial is influenced by multiple factors including patients' individual circumstances and attitudes, and the characteristics of the trial itself. The study identified three themes which encompass both qualitative and quantitative findings. These themes reveal it was important for patients to i) make sense of the trial and trial processes, ii) weigh up the risks and benefits of their different treatment options and participation, and iii) trust the trial and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient-centred approach to trial recruitment may help staff build trusting relationships with patients and address their individual concerns about the trial and the risks and benefits of participation.

Should I stay or should I go? A qualitative study exploring participation in a urology clinical trial

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to identify modifiable factors to improve recruitment in a urology clinical trial of women with recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI). An embedded qualitative study was conducted with patients and recruiting clinicians in the first 8 months of the trial. We present a matrix of factors influencing how patients make decisions about trial participation.

Methods

This was a qualitative study using telephone interviews. When they were first approached about the trial, women were asked to complete an expression of interest form if they wished to be contacted for an interview. Data were analysed thematically. NVivo 10 software (Qualitative data analysis software. 10th ed: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2012) was used as a management tool.

Results

Thirty patients and 11 clinicians were interviewed. Influences on patient participation included the impact of rUTI on quality of life (QoL), understanding of antibiotic resistance, and previous experiences with antibiotics either positive or negative. Very few women who declined the trial agreed to be interviewed. However, some of those who participated had reservations about it. These included the perceived risk of trying a new treatment, trial length, and the burden of participating. One person interviewed left the trial because of repeated infections and difficulties getting general practitioner appointments.

Conclusions

A combination of factors worked to influence women to decide to participate, to remain in, or to leave the trial. A better understanding of how these factors interact and work can assist in the recruitment and retention of individual trial participants.

Six dimensions of research trial acceptability: how much, what, when, in what circumstances, to whom and why?

Ethics guidelines emphasise that research should be acceptable to the people invited to take part. However, acceptability is subjective and dependent on context, complicating its assessment and use as an ethical standard. This paper examines the concept of acceptability in relation to parents' perspectives on a paediatric vaccine trial in Malawi. We examined decisions on participation and experiences of the trial through interviews with parents in 41 households invited to enrol their children and participant observation of trial processes. Fieldwork took place in Chikwawa, Southern Malawi from February-October 2016. Parents were not neatly split between those who saw the trial as acceptable and those who did not; instead there were mixed and changing feelings among parents who enrolled their children, and among those who withdrew or did not take part. Some parents agreed to participate but had concerns about the trial, while others expressed satisfaction with the trial but still did not take part. These experiences indicate substantial variation in the nature of acceptance. We describe these variations in relation to six dimensions of acceptability: how acceptable the trial is, what aspects are acceptable, changes over time, circumstances affecting acceptability, variations between people, and reasons for participation or non-participation. The findings illustrate the difficulty of determining whether a trial is sufficiently acceptable to potential participants. We suggest that clarifying definitions of acceptability and examining how acceptability varies in degree, between trial components, over time, and between people and contexts may help researchers generate more nuanced descriptions of acceptability that support responsive and ethical trial design.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy

OBJECTIVES

To test the feasibility of a randomised trial in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and compare outcomes in patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) or selective bladder preservation (SBP), where definitive treatment [RC or radiotherapy (RT)] is determined by response to chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

SPARE is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing RC and SBP in patients with MIBC staged T2-3 N0 M0, fit for both treatment strategies and receiving three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomised between RC and SBP before a cystoscopy after cycle three of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with ≤T1 residual tumour received a fourth cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in both groups, followed by radical RT in the SBP group and RC in in the RC group; non-responders in both groups proceeded immediately to RC following cycle three. Feasibility study primary endpoints were accrual rate and compliance with assigned treatment strategy. The phase III trial was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of SBP in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients whose tumours responded to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported quality of life, clinician assessed toxicity, loco-regional recurrence-free survival, and rate of salvage RC after SBP.

RESULTS

Trial recruitment was challenging and below the predefined target with 45 patients recruited in 30 months (25 RC; 20 SBP). Non-compliance with assigned treatment strategy was frequent, six of the 25 patients (24%) randomised to RC received RT. Long-term bladder preservation rate was 11/15 (73%) in those who received RT per protocol. OS survival was not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomising patients with MIBC between RC and SBP based on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not feasible in the UK health system. Strong clinician and patient preferences for treatments impacted willingness to undergo randomisation and acceptance of treatment allocation. Due to the few participants, firm conclusions about disease and toxicity outcomes cannot be drawn.

Radical cystectomy (bladder removal) against intravesical BCG immunotherapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (BRAVO): a protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

BRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12509361; Pre results.

"I didn't really understand it, I just thought it'd help": exploring the motivations, understandings and experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer participating in a non-placebo clinical IMP trial

BACKGROUND

Few studies have explored in depth the experiences of patients with advanced cancer who are participating in clinical investigational medicinal product trials. However, integrated qualitative studies in such trials are needed to enable a broader evaluation of patient experiences in the trial, with important ethical and practical implications for the design and conduct of similar trials and treatment regimes in the future.

METHODS

Ten participants were recruited from the control and intervention arms of FRAGMATIC: a non-placebo trial for patients with advanced lung cancer. Participants were interviewed at up to three time points during their time in the trial. Interviews were analysed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis.

RESULTS

Patients were motivated to join the trial out of hope of medical benefit and altruism. Understanding of randomisation was mixed and in some cases poor, as was appreciation of trial purpose and equipoise. The trial was acceptable to and evaluated positively by most participants; participants receiving the intervention focused on the potential treatment benefits they hoped they would receive, whilst participants in the control arm found alternative reasons, such as altruism, personal fulfilment and positive attention, to commit to and perceive benefits from the trial. However, whilst experiences were generally very positive, poor understanding, limited engagement with trial information and focus on treatment benefits amongst some participants give cause for concern.

CONCLUSIONS

By exploring longitudinally the psychological, emotional and cognitive domains of trial participation, we consider potential harms and benefits of participation in non-placebo trials amongst patients with advanced lung cancer and identify several implications for future research with and care for patients with advanced cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN80812769 . Registered on 8 July 2005.

Identifying components in consent information needed to support informed decision making about trial participation: An interview study with women managing cancer

BACKGROUND

Research governance requires patients give informed consent to participate in clinical trials. However, there are concerns that consent information may not support patient participation decisions. This study investigates the utility of consent information in supporting women's trial participation decisions when receiving treatment for cancer.

DESIGN

An interview study with women receiving cancer treatments at a medical oncology outpatient clinic in Yorkshire (UK). All women over 18 years, not admitted to a hospital ward and who had currently or previously been invited to take part in a trial were invited to take part in the study over a three month period. Interviews were audio-tape recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of those eligible (n = 41), 21 women with breast (n = 11), ovarian (n = 8) and endometrial (n = 2) cancer participated (mean age = 57 years). Eighteen had made at least one trial decision and three were considering taking part in a trial. Findings are synthesised under two analytical themes: 1) Influence of the cancer and cancer treatment context on decision making for trial participation; and 2) Experiences of the consenting process and their influence on decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing trial information to represent explicitly the trial participation decision as being between standard care and study-related care options is more likely to effectively support patients in making informed decisions between standard care treatments and taking part in a trial.

How Health Professionals Conceptualize and Represent Placebo Treatment in Clinical Trials and How Their Patients Understand It: Impact on Validity of Informed Consent

Context

Previous studies suggested that many patients, who have given their informed consent to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCT), have somewhat limited understanding of what a placebo treatment is. We hypothesized that the relationship between patients and their health professionals plays a central role in this understanding.

Methods

We interviewed 12 patients included in RCTs (nine suffering from Parkinson’s disease and three from Huntington’s disease) and 18 health professionals involved with RCTs (eight principal investigators, four associated physicians and six clinical research associates). Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the RCTs had ended but before the treatment allocation was revealed.

Results

Only two patients clearly understood the aim of placebo-controlled RCTs. Only one principal investigator said she asks all her patients whether they agree to participate in RCTs. The seven others said they only ask patients who seem more likely to be compliant. Their selection criteria included docility and personality traits associated in other studies with enhanced placebo responses. According to 13 of the 18 health professionals, their relationship with patients may influence the amplitude of the placebo response. All but one clinical research associates added that the placebo response could result from a “maternal” type of care. All principal investigators said they have a strong influence on their patient's decision to participate. Finally, when interviewees were asked to narrate a memory of a medically unexplained healing, in eight of 11 physicians' narratives the beneficiary was a child while in 10 of 12 patients' narratives it was an adult.

Conclusion

Our observations suggest that the interrelationship between health professionals and patients involved in RCTs could be compared to that between parents and children. Therefore, adherence to formal rules regarding informed consent does not ensure a balanced relationship between patients and health professionals.

Why do patients decline surgical trials? Findings from a qualitative interview study embedded in the Cancer Research UK BOLERO trial (Bladder cancer: Open versus Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy)

BACKGROUND

Surgical trials have typically experienced recruitment difficulties when compared with other types of oncology trials. Qualitative studies have an important role to play in exploring reasons for low recruitment, although to date few such studies have been carried out that are embedded in surgical trials. The BOLERO trial (Bladder cancer: Open versus Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy) is a study to determine the feasibility of randomisation to open versus laparoscopic access/robotic cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. We describe the results of a qualitative study embedded within the clinical trial that explored why patients decline randomisation.

METHODS

Ten semi-structured interviews with patients who declined randomisation to the clinical trial, and two interviews with recruiting research nurses were conducted. Data were analysed for key themes.

RESULTS

The majority of patients declined the trial because they had preferences for a particular treatment arm, and in usual practice could choose which surgical method they would be given. In most cases the robotic option was preferred. Patients described an intuitive 'sense' that favoured the new technology and had carried out their own inquiries, including Internet research and talking with previous patients and friends and family with medical backgrounds. Medical histories and lifestyle considerations also shaped these personalised choices. Of importance too, however, were the messages patients perceived from their clinical encounters. Whilst some patients felt their surgeon favoured the robotic option, others interpreted 'indirect' cues such as the 'established' reputation of the surgeon and surgical method and comments made during clinical assessments. Many patients expressed a wish for greater direction from their surgeon when making these decisions.

CONCLUSION

For trials where the 'new technology' is available to patients, there will likely be difficulties with recruitment. Greater attention could be paid to how messages about treatment options and the trial are conveyed across the whole clinical setting. However, if it is too difficult to challenge such messages, then questions should be asked about whether genuine and convincing equipoise can be presented and perceived in such trials. This calls for consideration of whether alternative methods of generating evidence could be used when evaluating surgical techniques which are established and routinely available.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN38528926 (11 December 2008).

The Role of Population-Based Observational Research in Bladder Cancer

While clinical trials have led to many advances in the treatment of bladder cancer, important gaps in knowledge persist. Population-based studies have made important contributions to what is known about bladder cancer and can contribute unique insights to practice and policy. In addition to evaluating effectiveness of interventions in routine practice, population-based studies can identify gaps between evidence and practice, and generate knowledge that cannot be gained from clinical trials. In this review we will highlight how population-based research has informed practice, policy, and the research agenda for bladder cancer.

Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities

BACKGROUND

Despite significant investment in infrastructure many trials continue to face challenges in recruitment and retention. We argue that insufficient focus has been placed on the development and testing of recruitment and retention interventions.

METHODS

In this current paper, we summarize existing reviews about interventions to improve recruitment and retention. We report survey data from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom to indicate the range of interventions used by these units to encourage recruitment and retention. We present the views of participants in a recent workshop and a priority list of recruitment interventions for evaluation (determined by voting among workshop participants). We also discuss wider issues concerning the testing of recruitment interventions.

RESULTS

Methods used to encourage recruitment and retention were categorized as: patient contact, patient convenience, support for recruiters, monitoring and systems, incentives, design, resources, and human factors. Interventions felt to merit investigation by respondents fell into three categories: training site staff, communication with patients, and incentives.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant resources continue to be invested into clinical trials and other high quality studies, but recruitment remains a significant challenge. Adoption of innovative methods to develop, test, and implement recruitment interventions are required.

Selective organ preservation for the treatment of muscle-invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a review of current and future perspectives

Radical treatment remains underutilized for those with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Radical radiotherapy, in particular, continues to be perceived by many as reserved only for patients unfit for cystectomy. However, with concurrent use of radiosensitizers, radiotherapy can achieve excellent local control and survival comparable to modern surgical series, thus presenting a real alternative to surgery. The possibility of further enhancing patient outcome is likely to come from both advances in radiotherapy treatment delivery and appropriate candidate selection. Growing evidence from selective bladder preservation trials demonstrate long term survival with functional organ preservation. In the era of personalized medicine, we review the evidence supporting an individualized treatment approach, in particular case selection for radical radiotherapy.

Feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial to compare (deferred) androgen deprivation therapy and cryotherapy in men with localised radiation-recurrent prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Salvage therapeutic options for biochemical failure after primary radiation-based therapy include radical prostatectomy, cryoablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), brachytherapy (for post-EBRT patients) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT and salvage prostate cryoablation (SPC) are two commonly considered treatment options for RRPC. However, there is an urgent need for high-quality clinical studies to support evidence-based decisions on treatment choice. Our study aims to determine the feasibility of randomising men with RRPC for treatment with ADT and SPC.

METHODS

The randomised controlled trial (CROP) was developed, which incorporated protocols to assess parameters relating to cryotherapy procedures and provide training workshops for optimising patient recruitment. Analysis of data from the recruitment phase and patient questionnaires was performed.

RESULTS

Over a period of 18 months, 39 patients were screened for eligibility. Overall 28 patients were offered entry into the trial, but only 7 agreed to randomisation. The majority reason for declining entry into the trial was an unwillingness to be randomised into the study. 'Having the chance of getting cryotherapy' was the major reason for accepting the trial. Despite difficulty in retrieving cryotherapy temperature parameters from prior cases, 9 of 11 cryotherapy centres progressed through the Cryotherapists Qualification Process (CQP) and were approved for recruiting into the CROP study.

CONCLUSIONS

Conveying equipoise between the two study arms for a salvage therapy was challenging. The use of delayed androgen therapy may have been seen as an inferior option. Future cohort studies into available salvage options (including prostate cryotherapy) for RRPC may be more acceptable to patients than randomisation within an RCT.

Consent, including advanced consent, of older adults to research in care homes: a qualitative study of stakeholders' views in South Wales

BACKGROUND

Care home residents, especially those lacking capacity to provide consent for themselves, are frequently excluded from research, thus limiting generalisability of study findings. We set out to explore stakeholders' views about the ethical and practical challenges associated with recruiting care home residents into research studies.

METHODS

Qualitative individual interviews with care home residents (n = 14), their relatives (n = 14), and general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and focus groups (n = 2) with care home staff. Interviews focused on the issues of older adults consenting to research in care homes, including advanced consent, in general and through reference to a particular study on the use of probiotics to prevent Antibiotic Associated Diarrhoea. Data were analysed using a thematic approach incorporating themes that had been identified in advance, and themes derived from the data. Researchers discussed evidence for themes, and reached consensus on the final themes.

RESULTS

Respondents were generally accepting of low risk observational studies and slightly less accepting of low risk randomised trials of medicinal products. Although respondents identified some practical barriers to informed consent, consenting arrangements were considered workable. Residents and relatives varied in the amount of detail they wanted included in information sheets and consent discussions, but were generally satisfied that an advanced consent model was acceptable and appropriate. Opinions differed about what should happen should residents lose capacity during a research study.

CONCLUSIONS

Research staff should be mindful of research guidance and ensure that they have obtained an appropriate level of informed consent without overwhelming the participant with unnecessary detail. For research involving medicinal products, research staff should also be more explicit when recruiting that consent is still valid should an older person lose capacity during a trial provided the individual did not previously state a wish to be withdrawn if they lose capacity, and provided they do not indicate objection or resistance after loss of capacity.