Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions.

METHODS

This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation.

DISCUSSION

This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry.

Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient-public involvement contributors

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient-public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives.

CONCLUSION

Critical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies.

Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: A decade in review

Informed consent is an essential requirement prior to clinical trial participation, however some 'vulnerable' groups, such as people with cognitive impairments and those in medical emergency situations, may lack decisional capacity to consent. This raises ethical and practical challenges when designing and conducting clinical trials involving these populations, who are frequently excluded as a result. Despite recent advances in improving informed consent processes, there has been far less attention paid to the enrolment of adults lacking capacity. Exclusion criteria are an important determinant of the external validity of clinical trial results. The exclusion of these populations, and consent-based recruitment biases which arise from the challenges of identifying and involving surrogate decision-makers, leads to trials which are not representative of the clinical population. This article discusses the involvement of adults who lack decisional capacity to consent in clinical trials and presents the advances over the previous decade and the remaining ethical challenges for the inclusion of this under-represented population in research.

Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: Experiences from three European palliative care studies

BACKGROUND

Research requires high-quality ethical and governance scrutiny and approval. However, when research is conducted across different countries, this can cause challenges due to the differing ethico-legal framework requirements of ethical boards. There is no specific guidance for research which does not involve non-medicinal products.

AIM

To describe and address differences in ethical and research governance procedures applied by research ethics committees for non-pharmaceutical palliative care studies including adult participants in collaborative European studies.

DESIGN

An online survey analysed using descriptive statistics.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Eighteen principal investigators in 11 countries conducting one of three European-funded studies.

RESULTS

There was variation in practice including whether ethical approval was required. The time to gain full approvals differed with the United Kingdom having governance procedures that took the longest time. Written consent was not required in all countries nor were data safety monitoring committees for trials. There were additional differences in relation to other data management issues.

CONCLUSION

Researchers need to take the differences in research approval procedures into account when planning studies. Future research is needed to establish European-wide recommendations for policy and practice that dovetail ethical procedures and enhance transnational research collaborations.

An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent

BACKGROUND

There is increasing international recognition that populations included in trials should adequately represent the population treated in clinical practice; however, adults who lack the capacity to provide informed consent are frequently excluded from trials. Addressing the under-representation of groups such as those with impaired capacity to consent is essential to develop effective interventions and provide these groups with the opportunity to benefit from evidence-based care. While the spotlight has been on ensuring only appropriate and justifiable exclusion criteria are used in trials, barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity are multifactorial and complex, and addressing their under-representation will require more than merely widening eligibility criteria. This commentary draws on the literature exploring the inclusion of adults lacking the capacity to consent in research and a number of recent studies to describe the methodological, structural, and systemic factors that have been identified.

MAIN TEXT

A number of potentially modifiable factors contributing to the under-representation of adults lacking the capacity to consent in trials have been identified. In addition to restrictive eligibility criteria, methodological issues include developing appropriate interventions and outcome measures for populations with impaired capacity. Structurally determined factors include the resource-intensive nature of these trials, the requirement for more appropriate research infrastructure, and a lack of interventions to inform and support proxy decision-makers. Systemic factors include the complexities of the legal frameworks, the challenges of ethical review processes, and paternalistic attitudes towards protecting adults with incapacity from the perceived harms of research.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures needed to address under-representation include greater scrutiny of exclusion criteria by those reviewing study proposals, providing education and training for personnel who design, conduct, and review research, ensuring greater consistency in the reviews undertaken by research ethics committees, and extending processes for advance planning to include prospectively appointing a proxy for research and documenting preferences about research participation. Negative societal and professional attitudes towards the inclusion of adults with impaired capacity in research should also be addressed, and the development of trials that are more person-centred should be encouraged. Further work to conceptualise under-representation in trials for such populations may also be helpful.

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

Background

The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency.

Methods

We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe.

Results

From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074).

Conclusion

We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.