Qualitative analysis of feasibility of recruitment and retention in a planned randomised controlled trial of a psychosocial cancer intervention within the NHS

Clinical reasoning in pragmatic trial randomization: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials, because they study widely used treatments in settings of routine practice, require intensive participation from clinicians who determine whether patients can be enrolled. Clinicians are often conflicted between their therapeutic obligation to patients and their willingness to enroll them in trials in which treatments are randomly determined and thus potentially suboptimal. Refusal to enroll eligible patients can hinder trial completion and damage generalizability. In order to help evaluate and mitigate clinician refusal, this qualitative study examined how clinicians reason about whether to randomize eligible patients.

METHODS

We performed interviews with 29 anesthesiologists who participated in REGAIN, a multicenter pragmatic randomized trial comparing spinal and general anesthesia in hip fracture. Interviews included a chart-stimulated section in which physicians described their reasoning pertaining to specific eligible patients as well as a general semi-structured section about their views on clinical research. Guided by a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analyzed data via coding, synthesized thematic patterns using focused coding, and developed an explanation using abduction.

RESULTS

Anesthesiologists perceived their main clinical function as preventing peri- and intraoperative complications. In some cases, they used prototype-based reasoning to determine whether patients with contraindications should be randomized; in others, they used probabilistic reasoning. These modes of reasoning involved different types of uncertainty. In contrast, anesthesiologists expressed confidence about anesthetic options when they accepted patients for randomization. Anesthesiologists saw themselves as having a fiduciary responsibility to patients and thus did not hesitate to communicate their inclinations, even when this complicated trial recruitment. Nevertheless, they voiced strong support for clinical research, stating that their involvement was mainly hindered by production pressure and workflow disruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that prominent ways of assessing clinician decisions about trial randomization are based on questionable assumptions about clinical reasoning. Close examination of routine clinical practice, attuned to the features of clinical reasoning we reveal here, will help both in evaluating clinicians' enrollment determinations in specific trials and in anticipating and responding to them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence After Hip Fracture (REGAIN).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT02507505. Prospectively registered on July 24, 2015.

Researching minoritised communities in palliative care: An agenda for change

BACKGROUND

Palliative care access, experiences and outcomes of care disadvantage those from ethnically diverse, Indigenous, First nation and First people communities. Research into this field of inquiry raises unique theoretical, methodological, and moral issues. Without the critical reflection of methods of study and reporting of findings, researchers may inadvertently compromise their contribution to reducing injustices and perpetuating racism.

AIM

To examine key evidence of the place of minoritised communities in palliative care research to devise recommendations that improve the precision and rigour of research and reporting of findings.

METHODS

Narrative review of articles identified from PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar for 10 years augmented with supplementary searches.

RESULTS

We identified and appraised 109 relevant articles. Four main themes were identified (i) Lack of precision when working with a difference; (ii) 'black box epidemiology' and its presence in palliative care research; (iii) the inclusion of minoritised communities in palliative care research; and (iv) the potential to cause harm. All stymie opportunities to 'level up' health experiences and outcomes across the palliative care spectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this review palliative care research must reflect on and justify the classification of minoritised communities, explore and understand intersectionality, optimise data quality, decolonise research teams and methods, and focus on reducing inequities to level up end-of-life care experiences and outcomes. Palliative care research must be forthright in explicitly indentifying instances of structural and systemic racism in palliative care research and engaging in non-judgemental debate on changes required.

Interventions to support adherence to oral anticancer therapies: research challenges, lessons learned, and strategies to overcome them from Australia and Switzerland

Not monitoring adherence to oral anticancer therapies (OAT) can lead to poor clinical outcomes, including premature death as reported by Foulon et al. (Acta Clin Belg 66(2):85-96, 2011) and Greer et al. (Oncologist 21(3):354-76, 2016). Barriers to the implementation of supportive cancer care interventions in medication adherence occur with multiple hospital sites, cancer diagnoses, and numerous healthcare professionals. This commentary describes challenges and strategies from two OAT adherence trials in Australia and Switzerland to assist researchers in the design and implementation of future interprofessional trials.

Recruitment characteristics and non-adherence associated factors of fibromyalgia patients in a randomized clinical trial: A retrospective survival analysis

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia is a complex pain condition that affects mostly women. Given the disease's lack of understanding, patients report poor adherence to medication and mistrust of medical services. This study aims to describe the recruitment characteristics and non-adherence associated factors of fibromyalgia patients to an RCT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective longitudinal analysis with data from our ongoing RCT. We investigated characteristics of subjects recruited, consented, and randomized. Adherence was studied using survival analysis techniques, and its associated factors were identified using Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

524 subjects were contacted, 269 were eligible, 61 consented and 40 subjects were randomized. Thirty-eight percent were non-adherent to the protocol with a median of visits of five. The recruitment survey reported that 90% would likely participate in RCTs, 52% had previous participation, and 19% were aware of RCTs by their physicians. Some barriers were investigator-related (staff's friendliness and receiving the results of their trial participation) and center-related (privacy-confidentiality issues and the institution's reputation), without difference between adherent and non-adherent participants. We report significant factors for non-adherence as VAS anxiety score of 5 or more (5.3 HR, p = 0.01), Body Mass Index (BMI) (0.91 HR, p = 0.041) and Quality of Life (QoL) - Personal development subdomain (0.89 HR, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Recruitment and adherence of fibromyalgia patients is a challenge; however, they seem eager to participate in RCTs. We recommend creating a comfortable, friendly and trusting environment to increase the recruitment rate. Higher anxiety, lower BMI and lower quality of life were associated with a higher attrition rate.

Barriers and facilitators for clinical trial participation of underrepresented and non-underrepresented fibromyalgia patients: A cross-sectional internet survey

BACKGROUND

There is a need of well-powered randomized clinical trials in fibromyalgia. However, challenges for recruitment are presented. This study aims to describe and assess the perception of barriers and facilitators and the associated factors for the participation of underrepresented and non-underrepresented fibromyalgia patients.

METHODS

We performed an online survey through REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) targeting fibromyalgia patients from April 7 to July 3, 2020 during the COVID-19 stay home mandate and it was restricted to the United States of America. We described and compared the survey characteristics between underrepresented and non-underrepresented participants, and we performed logistic regression models to assess the associated factors with clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

In total, 481 completed the survey including 168 underrepresented fibromyalgia patients. Only (1) 11.09 % reported previous participation in clinical trials and the significant perceived barriers were investigator-related (lack of friendliness of research staff and the opportunity to receive the results) and center-related (privacy and confidentiality policies, and the institution's reputation); (2) the participation rate and perceived barriers and facilitators were similar between underrepresented and non-underrepresented patients; and was positively associated with low income, higher age, and clinical trial awareness from their physician; and negatively associated with the perception of investigator-related barriers; and (4) for the underrepresented population, the presence of emotional support.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest low rates of participation, regardless of underrepresented population status. Strategies as involving their physician as liaison to increase the awareness of clinical trials, as well as improving patient-researcher communication should be considered in this population.

Improving Iowa Research Network Patient Recruitment for an Advance Care Planning Study

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

In February 2019, recruitment began in Iowa Research Network offices for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded Advance Care Planning (ACP) study to be conducted in 7 primary care practice-based research networks across the United States and Canada. The main study trained clinicians and nursing staff in serious illness care conversations and requested they refer eligible patients. Eligible patients were those with serious illness or frailty expected to live 1 to 2 years. Clinicians indicated it was difficult to identify eligible patients. This study aimed to find better methods for increasing patient recruitment for the ACP study.

METHODS

Research staff brainstormed and implemented strategies to increase patient referrals from clinicians. Participating offices used Epic for their medical record and the Gagne Index was used to generate a list of eligible patients in Epic SlicerDicer. When patients from the Epic SlicerDicer report appeared on the schedule, clinicians and nursing staff were notified that they might be eligible for ACP. Clinicians and nursing staff were asked to complete a survey identifying their perception of implemented strategies. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare referral numbers before and after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer intervention.

RESULTS

Seven clinicians referred patients prior to and 11 after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer intervention. Clinicians referred a total of 120 patients; 31 patients prior to and 89 patients after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer implementation (P = .002). Survey results indicated that several strategies facilitated clinician referrals, including patients identified as potentially appropriate on the schedule, quarterly meetings with researchers, and e-mails with a list of potentially eligible patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Notifying clinical staff about potential study participants increased patient referrals in this ACP study. Research staff must have time, funding, and patience to support clinical staff who are expected to refer patients to studies.

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.