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)

Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on patient perceptions and requirements during the perioperative period of robotic surgery

This research undertakes a comprehensive evaluation and amalgamation of patient experiences and requirements during the perioperative period of robot-assisted surgery (RS), with the goal of enriching clinical practice with patient-centered insights. A meta-synthesis was performed and reported according to the preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research statement. A rigorous literature search was conducted across multiple Chinese and English databases, namely PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP Information. This study incorporated ten qualitative studies, the outcomes were classified into three overarching themes: personalized patient requirements related to RS; the psychological and physiological experiences of patients; and the divergent perceptions of male and female patients regarding RS. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on patient comprehension of RS, augmenting focus on patient psychological experiences, recognizing unique patient needs at various stages of RS, and providing patients with specialized knowledge and technical support.

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.

Health care professional recruitment of patients and family carers to palliative care randomised controlled trials: A qualitative multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Trial participant recruitment is an interactional process between health care professionals, patients and carers. Little is known about how clinicians carry out this role in palliative care trials and the reasons why they do or do not recruit participants.

AIMS

To explore how clinicians recruit to palliative care trials, why they choose to implement particular recruitment strategies, and the factors that influence their choices.

DESIGN

A qualitative multiple case study of three UK palliative care trials. Data collection included interviews and study documentation. Analysis involved developing and refining theoretical propositions, guided by the '6Ps' of the 'Social Marketing Mix Framework' as an a priori framework (identifying participants, product, price, place, promotion and working with partners). Framework Analysis guided within and then cross-case analysis.

SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS

Study investigators and research staff (n = 3, 9, 7) from trial coordinating centres and recruitment sites (hospice and hospital).

RESULTS

Cross-case analysis suggests the 'Social Marketing Mix Framework' is useful for understanding recruitment processes but wider contextual issues need to be incorporated. These include the 'emotional labour' of diagnosing dying and communicating palliative and end-of-life care to potential participants and how the recruitment process is influenced by the power relationships and hierarchies that exist among professional groups. These factors can lead to and support paternalistic practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Those planning trials need to ensure that trial recruiters, depending on their experience and trial characteristics, have access to training and support to address the 'emotional labour' of recruitment. The type of training required requires further research.

Emesis in pregnancy - a qualitative study on trial recruitment failure from the EMPOWER internal pilot

BACKGROUND

As part of the internal pilot of the EMPOWER trial investigating the second-line antiemetic therapies in severe emesis in pregnancy ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16924692 ), a qualitative study of women's views was carried out, to improve our understanding of why women did, or did not, consent to participation in the trial. Interviews were also conducted with site research staff, to broaden our analysis and explore other factors affecting recruitment.

METHODS

The sample comprised women who accepted or declined trial participation (n=21) and site research staff (n=22). A structured topic guide was used, in four email interviews and 17 telephone interviews with women, and semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with staff. Of the women interviewed, seven had declined trial participation, and of the staff interviewed, 16 were research midwives/research nurses and six were principal investigators. All transcripts were checked for accuracy, anonymised and entered into NVIVO12 for indexing and retrieval. Data was analysed using a reflexive thematic analytic approach. In total, 72 codes were generated from the thematic analysis, and 36 from each sample group.

RESULTS

Three key themes based on all the interviews were (a) the diversity of recruitment pathways and boundaries of care, (b) the impact of trial complexity on recruitment and staff morale and (c) the ethics of caring for a patient with emesis. Ethical issues discussed included the use of double dummy and time to treat, particularly those suffering severely from the effects of nausea and vomiting. To illustrate these themes, staff perspectives are given more prominence.

CONCLUSIONS

The main reason the trial was stopped related to the high proportion of women ineligible for recruitment due to prior treatment with study drug(s) because of unanticipated changes in clinical practice. The qualitative results also demonstrate the impact of the trial on women and staff and highlight how the diversity of referral pathways, boundaries of care and the complexity of the trial and protocol resulted in additional barriers to successful trial recruitment. Qualitative work in pilot and feasibility studies of a clinical trial is recommended, to evaluate whether recruitment strategies remain viable in unanticipated contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number ISRCTN16924692 . Date: 08/01/2018.

Hope and meaning-making in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence on patient-participant experiences

Background

Phase 1 drug trials are popular treatment options for patients with advanced disease, despite the greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. However, their meaning and consequences for patient-participants remains under-explored. This review synthesises the qualitative evidence of patients’ experiences of participating in phase 1 oncology trials, exploring their decisions to take part and the impacts of these trials on patient wellbeing.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search involving medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords was undertaken in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, with supplementary searches also conducted. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers. Included studies were critically appraised and data extracted using standardised forms. Qualitative results were analysed using thematic synthesis.

Results

Three main themes were identified across 13 studies: decision-making and joining the trial; experiences of taking part in the trial and hope and coping. Patients primarily joined trials hoping for therapeutic benefits, sentiments which prevailed and shaped their experiences across their trial journey. Rather than indicate therapeutic misconception based on poor understanding, patient perspectives more commonly pointed to differences between hope and expectation and cultural narratives of staying positive, trying everything and trusting in experts.

Conclusions

These findings challenge information-based models of consent, favouring coping frameworks which account for the role of hope and meaning-making during serious illness. Personalised consideration of existential and quality-of-life matters before and during trials is recommended, including palliative and supportive care alternatives to active treatment.

Review Registration

The review was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD 42020163250).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06306-9.

Patients' experiences of the decision-making process for clinical trial participation

Clinical decision‐making about participating in a clinical trial is a complex process influenced by overwhelming information about prognosis, disease, and treatment options. The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of the decision‐making process when patients are presented with the opportunity to participate in a cancer clinical trial and to shed light on how patients experience the health communication, the nurse's role, and the physician's role. A qualitative study design was applied. Nine patients with advanced cancer were interviewed after being informed about their treatment options. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results showed that patients made treatment decisions mainly guided by their emotions and trust in the physician. Furthermore, the physicians had a great impact on the decisions, and the nurse's role was associated with conversations about how to manage life. The study highlights the importance of talking about prognosis and addressing the patient's existential issues, particularly in this context of advanced cancer. The study elucidates a need for healthcare professionals to engage in health communication about life when it is coming to an end.

The challenge of equipoise: qualitative interviews exploring the views of health professionals and women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer on recruitment to a surgical randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background

A multicentre feasibility trial (MIAMI), comparing outcomes and quality of life of women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer randomised to therapeutic mammoplasty or mastectomy, was conducted from September 2018 to March 2020. The MIAMI surgical trial aimed to investigate recruitment of sufficient numbers of women. Multidisciplinary teams at 10 breast care centres in the UK identified 190 with MIBC diagnosis; 20 were eligible for trial participation but after being approached only four patients were recruited. A nested qualitative study sought to understand the reasons for this lack of recruitment.

Methods

Interviews were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020 with 17 staff from eight hospital-based breast care centres that recruited and attempted to recruit to MIAMI; and seven patients from four centres, comprising all patients who were recruited to the trial and some who declined to take part. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic methods of building codes into themes and sub-themes using the process of constant comparison.

Results

Overarching themes of (1) influences on equipoise and recruitment and (2) effects of a lack of equipoise were generated. Within these themes, health professional themes described the barriers to recruitment as ‘the treatment landscape has changed’, ‘staff preferences and beliefs’ which influenced equipoise and patient advice; and how different the treatments were for patients. Patient themes of ‘altruism and timing of trial approach’, ‘influences from consultants and others’ and ‘diagnostic journey doubts’ all played a part in whether patients agreed to take part in the trial.

Conclusions

Barriers to recruiting to breast cancer surgical trials can be significant, especially where there are substantial differences between the treatments being offered and a lack of equipoise communicated by healthcare professionals to patients. Patients can become overwhelmed by numerous requests for participation in research trials and inappropriate timing of trial discussions. Alternative study designs to the gold standard randomised control trial for surgical interventions may be required to provide the high-quality evidence on which to base practice.

Trial registration

ISRCTN (ISRCTN17987569) registered on April 20, 2018, and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03514654).

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.

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.

Patient experiences of receiving arthroscopic surgery or personalised hip therapy for femoroacetabular impingement in the context of the UK fashion study: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

UK FASHIoN was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing hip arthroscopic surgery (HA) with personalised hip therapy (PHT, physiotherapist-led conservative care), for patients with hip pain attributed to femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. Our aim was to describe the treatment and trial participation experiences of patients, to contextualise the trial results and offer further information to assist treatment decision-making in FAI.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of trial participants from each of the trial arms. They were interviewed after they received treatment and completed their first year of trial participation. Thematic analysis and constant comparison analytical approaches were used to identify themes of patient treatment experiences during the trial.

RESULTS

Forty trial participants were interviewed in this qualitative study. Their baseline characteristics were similar to those in the main trial sample. On average, their hip-related quality of life (iHOT-33 scores) at 12 months follow-up were lower than average for all trial participants, indicating poorer hip-related quality of life as a consequence of theoretical sampling. Patient experiences occurred in five patient groups: those who felt their symptoms improved with hip arthroscopy, or with personal hip therapy, patients who felt their hip symptoms did not change with PHT but did not want HA, patients who decided to change from PHT to HA and a group who experienced serious complications after HA. Interviewees mostly described a trouble-free, enriching and altruistic trial participation experience, although most participants expected more clinical follow-up at the end of the trial.

CONCLUSION

Both HA and PHT were experienced as beneficial by participants in the trial. Treatment success appeared to depend partly on patients' prior own expectations as well as their outcomes, and future research is needed to explore this further. Findings from this study can be combined with the primary results to inform future FAI patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement versus best conventional care ( ISRCTN64081839 ). 28/02/2014.

Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018.

METHODS

The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6.

RESULTS

The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer Patients: A Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and urinary diversion in patients with bladder cancer is known for its high risk of complications. Although open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment, robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice, despite the fact that high-quality evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of RARC compared with that of ORC, in terms of 90 d complications (Clavien-Dindo), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective comparative effectiveness study was conducted in 19 Dutch centres, expert in either ORC or RARC. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 30, 90, and 365 d.

INTERVENTION

Standard ORC or RARC with PLND, using a standardised perioperative protocol.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was any-grade complications after 90 d. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, complications (minor, major, 30 d, and 365 d), and clinical outcomes. Differences were calculated as risk differences (RDs) between the groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential baseline differences by means of propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between March 2016 and November 2018, 348 patients were included (n = 168 for ORC, n = 180 for RARC). At 90 d, any-grade complication rates were 63% for ORC and 56% for RARC (RD -6.4%, 95% CI -17 to 4.5). Major complication rates were 15% for ORC and 16% for RARC (RD 0.9%, 95% CI -7.0 to 8.8). Total minor complication rates were 57% for ORC and 49% for RARC (RD -7.6%, 95% CI -19 to 3.6). Analyses showed no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between ORC and RARC. Some differences were found in the secondary outcomes in favour of either RARC or ORC. The major drawback inherent to the design comprises residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicentre comparative effectiveness study showed no statistically significant differences between ORC and RARC in terms of complications and HRQOL.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This multicentre study did not show differences in overall complication rates, health-related quality of life, mortality, and clinical and oncological outcomes between open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients.

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.

Challenges to and Facilitators of Recruitment to an Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trial: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Low participation in clinical trials is a major challenge to advancing clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care. Factors influencing recruitment to AD trials are not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

To identify barriers to, and facilitators of, recruitment in a UK multi-center, secondary care AD trial (Reducing pathology in Alzheimer's Disease through Angiotensin TaRgeting (RADAR) trial) and implications for improving recruitment to AD trials.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 17 trial site staff explored the RADAR trial recruitment pathway and views and experiences of recruitment. Interviews were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Diagnostic and care pathways hindered identifying patients with mild-moderate AD, with a lack of up-to-date patient records and data access problems affecting screening. Research is not routinely embedded in AD care but facilitated recruitment when it was. Clinicians' and patients' favorable view of the trial purpose facilitated recruitment, although the complexity of participant information sheets and requirement for study companion created challenges.

CONCLUSION

These findings have important implications for the design of future AD trials and for planning how to best interface with clinical commitments to ensure sufficient and timely recruitment. Challenges to AD trial recruitment can occur at care pathway, clinician, and patient and companion levels. Recruitment can be facilitated by: improving diagnostic processes and systems for recording and sharing patient information, embedding research into routine patient care, collaborating with a range of services to identify and approach eligible patients, training and engaging trial staff, and providing patients with clear and concise study information.

The informational and decisional preferences of patients undergoing surgery for Crohn's anal fistula: a qualitative study

AIM

One in three patients with Crohn's disease will develop a perianal fistula, but only a few achieve long-term healing. Treatment is both medical and surgical. Since there is no 'best' surgical procedure, patient preference is important in selecting the appropriate treatment for this condition. The aim of this study was to investigate the informational and decisional preferences of patients when surgical treatment is being considered.

METHOD

Patients who had undergone surgery for Crohn's anal fistula underwent face-to-face semi-structured interviews. These explored the experience of treatments for fistula, of receiving information and of participation in decision-making. Transcripts were analysed by two investigators through inductive thematic analysis. Saturation was assessed for at 12 interviews and then after each subsequent interview.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients completed interviews, and saturation was achieved. Five themes were identified, of which two (desired information and decision-making) were relevant to this study. Other themes included experience of Crohn's disease, experience of receiving information and procedure-specific comments. Participants wanted to have information on any risks, high-level outcomes (e.g. success), impact on day-to-day life and aftercare. Participants felt they did not always receive the information they needed to select the best treatment option. Participants felt uninvolved in treatment decisions and would have liked to trade off operations to reach their treatment goal.

CONCLUSION

Information provided to patients about surgical treatment of Crohn's perianal fistula does not meet their needs. Clinicians should address aftercare, impact on quality of life and the risks and benefits of the any proposed procedure.

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.

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while still considered the gold standard approach in medical research, can encounter impediments to their successful conduct and the dissemination of results. Pretrial qualitative research can usefully address some of these impediments, including recruitment and retention, ethical conduct, and preferred methods of dissemination. However, pretrial qualitative work is rarely undertaken in audiology. The Comparison of outcomes with hearing aids and cochlear implants in adults with moderately severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (COACH) is a proposed RCT aiming to clarify when hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CIs) are the most suitable for different degrees of hearing loss and for which kinds of patients. q-COACH is a pretrial, qualitative study examining stakeholders' experiences of HAs and CIs, current clinical practices and stakeholders' perspectives of the design, conduct and dissemination plans for the proposed COACH study.

METHODS

Twenty-four participants including general practitioners, audiologists, adult HA users, and adult support networks undertook either semi-structured individual or paired interviews and completed demographic questionnaires. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Four key themes arose from this study: 1) rethinking sampling and recruitment strategies, 2) ethical considerations, 3) refining trial conduct, and 4) interconnected, appropriate and accessible methods of results dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative investigation identified key considerations for the proposed RCT design, conduct and dissemination to help with successful implementation of COACH, and to indicate a plan of action at all RCT stages that would be acceptable to potential participants. By drawing on the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders and including a more general discussion of their experience and opinions of hearing loss, hearing device use and service availability, the study revealed experiential and ethical paradigms in which stakeholders operate. In so doing, q-COACH has exposed the benefits of preliminary qualitative investigations that enable detailed and rich understandings of the phenomenon at stake, forestalling problems and improving the quality of trial design, conduct and dissemination, while informing future RCT development discussions.

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic and racial differences have been associated with disparities in cancer care within the US, including disparate access to minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. We hypothesized that robotic approach to rectal cancer may be associated with similar disparities.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients over 18 years old with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent a proctectomy between 2010 and 2014. Demographic and hospital factors were analyzed for association with robotic approach. Factors identified on bivariate analyses informed multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 33,503 patients who met inclusion criteria; 3702 (11.1%) underwent robotic surgery with 7.8% conversion rate. Patients who received robotic surgery were more likely to be male, white, privately insured and with stage III cancer. They were also more likely to live in a metropolitan area, more than 25 miles away from the hospital and with a higher high school graduation rate. The treating hospital was more likely to be academic and high volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is performed rarely and access to it is limited for patients who are female, black, older, non-privately insured and unable to travel to high-volume teaching institutions. The advantages of robotic surgery may not be available to all patients given disparate access to the robot. This inherent bias in access to robot may skew study populations, preventing generalizability of robotic surgery research.

Patient understanding and acceptability of an early lung cancer diagnosis trial: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients' experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005 . Registered on 27 April 2011.

Enrollment and reporting practices in pediatric general surgical randomized clinical trials: A systematic review and observational analysis

BACKGROUND

Pediatric surgical randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are labor-intensive and costly. This systematic review investigated patient accrual and estimates of study duration in RCTs by interrogating enrollment and registration practices.

METHODS

We performed a peer-review search of multiple databases from 2000 to 2016 evaluating RCTs salient to the field with inclusion mandated that a self-identified pediatric surgeon be listed as an author. Trial registries were also searched. RCTs were appraised, and predictors of success were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression, with success defined as achievement of recruitment objectives.

RESULTS

After screening, 137 RCTs were analyzed. Mean Jadad score was 1.80 (median=2). CONSORT scores ranged between 17% and 97% (median=58%). Sixty-seven studies described sample-size determination, 49 reported projected enrollment, and 26 were successful. Among 26 registered RCTs, 15 disclosed their expected completion date, which was achieved by 8. On average, protocols underwent 3.42 iterations. 9% of trials were terminated before completion, most commonly owing to poor recruitment. Trial registration and urgent cases significantly predicted success on multivariable analysis (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Overall quality of reporting in pediatric surgical trials is poor. Sample-size calculation and patient accrual are frequently poorly performed or underestimated, resulting in trial overrun and/or premature termination. These data may help inform subsequent study design and facilitate successful completion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-Systematic Review and Observational (Case-Control) Analysis.

Training health professionals to recruit into challenging randomized controlled trials improved confidence: the development of the QuinteT randomized controlled trial recruitment training intervention

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate a training intervention for recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly for those anticipated to be difficult for recruitment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

One of three training workshops was offered to surgeons and one to research nurses. Self-confidence in recruitment was measured through questionnaires before and up to 3 months after training; perceived impact of training on practice was assessed after. Data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests and supplemented with findings from the content analysis of free-text comments.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven surgeons and 32 nurses attended. Self-confidence scores for all 10 questions increased after training [range of mean scores before 5.1-6.9 and after 6.9-8.2 (scale 0-10, all 95% confidence intervals are above 0 and all P-values <0.05)]. Awareness of hidden challenges of recruitment following training was high-surgeons' mean score 8.8 [standard deviation (SD), 1.2] and nurses' 8.4 (SD, 1.3) (scale 0-10); 50% (19/38) of surgeons and 40% (10/25) of nurses reported on a 4-point Likert scale that training had made "a lot" of difference to their RCT discussions. Analysis of free text revealed this was mostly in relation to how to convey equipoise, explain randomization, and manage treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons and research nurses reported increased self-confidence in discussing RCTs with patients, a raised awareness of hidden challenges and a positive impact on recruitment practice following QuinteT RCT Recruitment Training. Training will be made more available and evaluated in relation to recruitment rates and informed consent.

Adaptation of the By-Band randomized clinical trial to By-Band-Sleeve to include a new intervention and maintain relevance of the study to practice

Background

Recruitment into surgical RCTs can be threatened if new interventions available outside the trial compete with those being evaluated. Adapting the trial to include the new intervention may overcome this issue, yet this is not often done in surgery. This paper describes the challenges, rationale and methods for adapting an RCT to include a new intervention.

Methods

The By‐Band study was designed in the UK in 2009–2010 to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass for severe obesity. It contained a pilot phase to establish whether recruitment was possible, and the grant proposal specified that an adaptation to include sleeve gastrectomy would be considered if practice changed and recruitment was successful. Information on changing obesity surgery practice, updated evidence and expert opinion about trial design were used to inform the adaptation.

Results

The pilot phase recruited over 13 months in 2013–2014 and randomized 80 patients (79 anticipated). During this time, major changes in obesity practice in the UK were observed, with gastric band reducing from 32·6 to 15·8 per cent and sleeve gastrectomy increasing from 9·0 to 28·1 per cent. The evidence base had not changed markedly. The British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society and study oversight committees supported an adaptation to include sleeve gastrectomy, and a proposal to do so was approved by the funder.

Conclusion

Adaptation of a two‐group surgical RCT can allow evaluation of a third procedure and maintain relevance of the RCT to practice. It also optimizes the use of existing trial infrastructure to answer an additional important research question. Registration number: ISRCTN00786323 (http://www.isrctn.com/).

Something to consider

Reasons for participating in a randomised clinical trial: The volunteers' voices in the COSTOP trial in Uganda

Introduction

The reasons why research participants join clinical trials remains an area of inquiry especially in low and middle income countries.

Methods

We conducted exit interviews with participants who took part in a trial which aimed to evaluate whether long term prophylaxis with cotrimoxazole can be safely discontinued among adults who have been stabilised on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Participants were all reported to be stable on ART and had been participating in the trial for between 12 and 36 months; at the end of the trial participants were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. One of the objectives of the exit interview was to find out what motivated the participants to join the research.

Results

Participants gave personal reasons for joining the trial, frequently linked to their health and well-being as well as reduction of pill burden.

Conclusion

We conclude that underlying reasons for joining clinical trials may extend beyond or can be different from the rationale given to the participants before enrolment by the research team. The reasons that motivate enrolment to clinical trials and research in general require further investigation in different settings.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN44723643.

Exploring the motivations of patients with type 2 diabetes to participate in clinical trials: a qualitative analysis

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Certain patient groups are reluctant to engage with clinical research and consequently findings are not always truly representative of the wider population. With the emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, clinical research as a core activity for the National Health Service (NHS) and the rising prevalence of diabetes within the United Kingdom (UK) it is important to understand what motivates people to volunteer for research in diabetes and identify the barriers to this involvement. This research interviewed 12 people with type 2 diabetes who had previously taken part in diabetes clinical trials. The transcripts of these interviews were analysed to identify themes that informed the study findings.There were wide ranging reasons for participating in clinical trials. Both altruistic and self-interest motivation were universally expressed. The thought of helping others was a powerful experience but for some there was a sense of duty to volunteer especially if they had benefited from NHS care. Participating was empowering, with extra access to healthcare professionals, practical information and support for their condition. Coping with the logistics of being in a trial relied upon a strong network of family and friends. Some felt anxious at the end of the trial having been supported during the research and appreciating the camaraderie of belonging to a group or team.This study provides insights into the motivations and barriers to involvement in clinical research in type 2 diabetes helping researchers to encourage and support more volunteers in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT

Background Certain patient groups are reluctant to engage with clinical research and consequently findings of the research are not always truly representative of the wider population. This, together with a growing prominence of evidence-based clinical practice, an increasing emphasis of clinical research as a core activity for the NHS and the rising prevalence of diabetes within the UK population, requires an understanding of motivations and barriers for patients consenting to participate in diabetes clinical trials.Methods To understand patients' motivations for participating in clinical trials in type 2 diabetes. We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 participants with type 2 diabetes with previous involvement in clinical trials. Individual, tape-recorded, semi structured interviews were conducted to explore motivations and experiences of the participants. We carried out thematic content analysis to identify themes, from which theoretical interpretations were formed.Results There were wide ranging reasons for participating in clinical trials. We identified 3 key themes: (1) Motivations ranged from altruism to self-interest; (2) participation in clinical trials was an empowering experience; and (3) key to participation was a strong network of support.Conclusion Patients are motivated to participate in clinical trials by a sense of altruism coupled with self-interest. This self-interest centres on the belief that participation would be an informative and empowering experience with increased access to healthcare professionals. However the ability to cope with the logistics of being in clinical trials relies upon an extensive and reliable network of support from family, friends, work colleagues and employers, together with a collaborative approach to their care from the researchers and their usual healthcare providers.

Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Extracorporeal Urinary Diversion Does Not Show a Benefit over Open Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

The number of robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) procedures is increasing despite the lack of Level I evidence showing any advantages over open radical cystectomy (ORC). However, several systematic reviews with meta-analyses including non-randomised studies, suggest an overall benefit for RARC compared to ORC. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the perioperative morbidity and efficacy of RARC compared to ORC in patients with bladder cancer.

Methods

Literature searches of Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov databases up to 10^th March 2016 were performed. The inclusion criteria for eligible studies were RCTs which compared perioperative outcomes of ORC and RARC for bladder cancer. Primary objective was perioperative and histopathological outcomes of RARC versus ORC while the secondary objective was quality of life assessment (QoL), oncological outcomes and cost analysis.

Results

Four RCTs (from 5 articles) met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 239 patients all with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics of RARC and ORC patients were evenly matched. There was no significant difference between groups in perioperative morbidity, length of stay, positive surgical margin, lymph node yield and positive lymph node status. RARC group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (p<0.001) and wound complications (p = 0.03) but required significantly longer operating time (p<0.001). QoL was not measured uniformly across trials and cost analysis was reported in one RCTs. A test for heterogeneity did highlight differences across operating time of trials suggesting that surgeon experience may influence outcomes.

Conclusions

This study does not provide evidence to support a benefit for RARC compared to ORC. These results may not have inference for RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion. Well-designed trials with appropriate endpoints conducted by equally experienced ORC and RARC surgeons will be needed to address this.

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians' Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.

CONCLUSIONS

Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

"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.

A Prospective Randomized Trial of the Effects of Early Enteral Feeding After Radical Cystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the role of early feeding on recovery after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. Enhanced recovery protocols have helped to standardize postoperative recovery. This is the first study to directly review the impact of early feeding on recovery in a randomized multi-institutional protocol.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2014, patients at 2 large hospitals were randomized after radical cystectomy to receive access to liquids and then a regular diet on postoperative days 1 and 2 or conventional care with introduction of a liquid diet after return of bowel activity, typically days 3-5. Early ambulation, use of metoclopramide, and no nasogastric tube were standard for all patients. The study was powered to detect a 50% decrease in 90-day complication rate with secondary end points of length of stay, time to bowel activity, and time to diet tolerance. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual (102 of 328).

RESULTS

Overall complications for the early vs standard groups were similar (34 vs 31, P = .86). Immediate inpatient and postdischarge complication rates were also similar (P = .63 and P = .44). Length of stay was not different (8.74 days vs 9.69 days, P = .43). Rates of ileus (27% vs 41%, P = .21) and return of bowel function (4.67 days vs 4.09 days, P = .62) were the same in arms.

CONCLUSION

Although this prospective randomized study did not meet the accrual target, early introduction of diet was well tolerated and did not show a negative or positive difference in any outcomes. Enhanced recovery protocols standardize postoperative care and early feeding is a well-tolerated addition.