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

Exploring research participation in Scottish care homes since the COVID-19 pandemic

Knowledge about research participation in care homes is sparse. To explore research participation in Scottish care homes, including the potential barriers and facilitators, a short survey was distributed to all care homes in Scotland in 2014. The survey was repeated in 2022 as care homes emerged from the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This article provides a comparison of the results of the 2022 survey (45 responses) with those of the 2014 survey (130 responses); the surveys were completed by care home staff. The results indicate that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of care homes involved in research in the intervening period but overall, research participation has remained low in this sector. In the 2022 survey, the main factors identified as influencing a resident's decision to participate in research were 'to help others', 'to benefit the resident' and the 'resident's desire to participate'. The main obstacles to research participation by staff and/or residents were workload pressure and lack of time, which had increased significantly since the 2014 survey. The results reinforce the importance of ensuring care home staff feel equipped to participate in research.

MulTI-domain self-management in older People wiTh OstEoarthritis and multi-morbidities: protocol for the TIPTOE randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Four out of five people living with osteoarthritis (OA) also suffer with at least one other long-term health condition. The complex interaction between OA and multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) can result in difficulties with self-care, restricted mobility, pain, anxiety, depression and reduced quality of life. The aim of the MulTI-domain Self-management in Older People wiTh OstEoarthritis and Multi-Morbidities (TIPTOE) trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Living Well self-management support intervention, co-designed with people living with OA, integrated into usual care, in comparison to usual care alone.

METHODS

TIPTOE is a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial where 824 individuals over 65 years old with knee and/or hip joint pain from their OA affected joint and at least one other long-term health condition will be randomised to receive either the Living Well Self-Management support intervention or usual care. Eligible participants can self-refer onto the trial via a website or be referred via NHS services across Wales and England. Those randomised to receive the Living Well support intervention will be offered up to six one-to-one coaching sessions with a TIPTOE-trained healthcare practitioner and a co-designed book. Participants will be encouraged to nominate a support person to assist them throughout the study. All participants will complete a series of self-reported outcome measures at baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome is symptoms and quality of life as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ). Routine data will be used to evaluate health resource use. A mixed methods process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform future implementation should the TIPTOE intervention be found both clinically and cost-effective. An embedded 'Study Within A Project' (SWAP) will explore and address barriers to the inclusion of under-served patient groups (e.g. oldest old, low socioeconomic groups, ethnic groups).

DISCUSSION

TIPTOE will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a co-designed, living well personalised self-management support intervention for older individuals with knee and/or hip OA and MLTCs. The trial has been designed to maximise inclusivity and access.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 16024745 . Registered on October 16, 2023.

'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE)

BACKGROUND

Health and care research involving people who lack capacity to consent requires an alternative decision maker to decide whether they participate or not based on their 'presumed will'. However, this is often unknown. Advance research planning (ARP) is a process for people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to prospectively express their preferences about research participation and identify who they wish to be involved in future decisions. This may help to extend individuals' autonomy by ensuring that proxy decisions are based on their actual wishes. This qualitative study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of ARP and identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the UK.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 researchers, practitioners, and members of the public who had participated in a preceding survey. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and November 2023. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of the concept of ARP, with differing amounts of support for the range of possible ARP activities depending on the context. Six main themes were identified: (1) Planting a seed - creating opportunities to initiate/engage with ARP; (2) A missing part of the puzzle - how preferences expressed through ARP could help inform decisions; (3) Finding the sweet spot - optimising the timing of ARP; (4) More than a piece of paper - finding the best mode for recording preferences; (5) Keeping the door open to future opportunities - minimising the risk of unintended consequences; and (6) Navigating with a compass - principles underpinning ARP to ensure safeguarding and help address inequalities. Participants also identified a number of implementation challenges, and proposed facilitative strategies that might overcome them which included embedding advance research planning in existing future planning processes and research-focused activities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a routemap to implementing ARP in the UK to enable people anticipating impaired capacity to express their preferences about research, thus ensuring greater opportunities for inclusion of this under-served group, and addressing the decisional burden experienced by some family members acting as proxies. Development of interventions and guidance to support ARP is needed, with a focus on ensuring accessibility.

Getting the most out of remote care: Co-developing a Toolkit to improve the delivery of remote kidney care appointments for underserved groups

BACKGROUND

Telephone and video appointments are still common post-pandemic, with an estimated 25%-50% of kidney appointments in the United Kingdom still conducted remotely. This is important as remote consultations may exacerbate pre-existing inequalities in those from underserved groups. Those from underserved groups are often not represented in health research and include those with learning disability, mental health needs, hearing/sight problems, young/older people, those from ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to develop a Toolkit to improve the quality of remote kidney care appointments for people from different underserved groups.

DESIGN

A parallel mixed methods approach with semistructured interviews/focus groups and survey. We also conducted workshops to develop and validate the Toolkit.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-five renal staff members completed the survey and 21 patients participated in the interviews and focus groups. Patients (n = 11) and staff (n = 10) took part in the Toolkit development workshop, and patients (n = 13) took part in the Toolkit validation workshop.

RESULTS

Four themes from interviews/focus groups suggested areas in which remote appointments could be improved. Themes were quality of appointment, patient empowerment, patient-practitioner relationship and unique needs for underserved groups. Staff reported difficulty building rapport, confidentiality issues, confidence about diagnosis/advice given, technical difficulties and shared decision making.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to explore experiences of remote appointments among both staff and those from underserved groups living with kidney disease in the United Kingdom. While remote appointments can be beneficial, our findings indicate that remote consultations need optimisation to meet the needs of patients. The project findings informed the development of a Toolkit which will be widely promoted and accessible in the United Kingdom during 2024.

Determining capacity of people with dementia to take part in research: an electronic survey study of researcher confidence, competence and training needs

BACKGROUND

Researchers are required to determine whether a person has capacity to consent to a research study before they are able to participate. The Mental Capacity Act and accompanying Code of Practice for England and Wales provide some guidance on this process, but researchers have identified that it can be difficult to determine capacity to consent when a person has complex cognitive or communication needs. This study aimed to understand the experiences and opinions of researchers who recruit people with dementia to research projects, to inform the future development of training resources.

METHODS

A mixed method, cross-sectional, electronic survey was circulated via social media and research networks in England and Wales. The survey remained open for ten weeks and included open and closed questions exploring respondents' confidence in determining capacity in the context of recruiting people with dementia to consent, their views on training and support they have experienced and their suggestions for future training and support needs.

RESULTS

60 respondents completed the survey from across England and Wales. Although 75% of respondents had experience of determining capacity to consent with people with dementia to research, only 13% rated themselves as feeling 'very confident' in this. Qualitative content analysis of open responses led to the generation of six themes, explaining researchers' confidence, competence and future training needs in this area: (1) Researcher uncertainties, (2) Lack of time, (3) Balancing information complexity with accessibility, (4) Gatekeepers, (5) Existing enablers and (6) Envisioning future training.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers would benefit from specific training in undertaking conversations around consent with people with dementia. People with dementia may have fluctuating capacity, and despite support from caregivers, researchers have little practical guidance on methods of determining a person's ability to understand or appreciate the information they have provided during the consent process. Given the development of large complex trials within dementia research, there is an urgency to develop specific and practical guidance and training for researchers working with people with dementia and their families.

Aspiring toward equitable benefits from genomic advances to individuals of ancestrally diverse backgrounds

Advancements in genomic technologies have shown remarkable promise for improving health trajectories. The Human Genome Project has catalyzed the integration of genomic tools into clinical practice, such as disease risk assessment, prenatal testing and reproductive genomics, cancer diagnostics and prognostication, and therapeutic decision making. Despite the promise of genomic technologies, their full potential remains untapped without including individuals of diverse ancestries and integrating social determinants of health (SDOHs). The NHGRI launched the 2020 Strategic Vision with ten bold predictions by 2030, including "individuals from ancestrally diverse backgrounds will benefit equitably from advances in human genomics." Meeting this goal requires a holistic approach that brings together genomic advancements with careful consideration to healthcare access as well as SDOHs to ensure that translation of genetics research is inclusive, affordable, and accessible and ultimately narrows rather than widens health disparities. With this prediction in mind, this review delves into the two paramount applications of genetic testing-reproductive genomics and precision oncology. When discussing these applications of genomic advancements, we evaluate current accessibility limitations, highlight challenges in achieving representativeness, and propose paths forward to realize the ultimate goal of their equitable applications.

Enhancing recruitment of individuals living with frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive impairment to Parkinson's research: experiences from the PRIME-UK cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

People with parkinsonism who are older, living in a care home, with frailty, multimorbidity or impaired capacity to consent are under-represented in research, limiting its generalisability. We aimed to evaluate more inclusive recruitment strategies.

METHODS

From one UK centre, we invited people with parkinsonism to participate in a cross-sectional study. Postal invitations were followed by telephone reminders and additional support to facilitate participation. Personal consultees provided information on the views regarding research participation of adults with impaired capacity. These approaches were evaluated: (i) using external data from the Parkinson's Real World Impact assesSMent (PRISM) study and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a sample of all cases in UK primary care, and (ii) comparing those recruited with or without intensive engagement.

RESULTS

We approached 1,032 eligible patients, of whom 542 (53%) consented and 477 (46%) returned questionnaires. The gender ratio in PRIME-UK (65% male) closely matched CPRD (61% male), unlike in the PRISM sample (46%). Mean age of PRIME participants was 75.9 (SD 8.5) years, compared to 75.3 (9.5) and 65.4 (8.9) years for CPRD and PRISM, respectively. More intensive engagement enhanced recruitment of women (13.3%; 95% CI 3.8, 22.9%; P = 0.005), care home residents (6.2%; 1.1, 11.2%; P = 0.004), patients diagnosed with atypical parkinsonism (13.7%; 5.4, 19.9%; P < 0.001), and those with a higher frailty score (mean score 0.2, 0.1, 0.2; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These recruitment strategies resulted in a less biased and more representative sample, with greater inclusion of older people with more complex parkinsonism.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies

OBJECTIVES

To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations.

RESULTS

We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base.

CONCLUSION

Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

Navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map: lessons from setting up the BATH-OUT-2 randomised controlled trial in adult social care and housing services in English local authorities

Populations around the world are rapidly ageing and more people are living with multiple long-term conditions. There is an urgent need for evidence about high quality, cost-effective, and integrated systems of health and social care. Health research funders are now also prioritising research in adult social care and wider local authority settings, e.g. housing services.Developing the evidence base for adult social care should include implementing randomised controlled trials, where appropriate. Within the UK, the clinical trial is the established road map for evaluating interventions in the National Health Service (NHS). However, adult social care and local authorities are relatively uncharted territory for trials. BATH-OUT-2 is one of the first clinical trials currently underway within adult social care and housing adaptations services in six English local authorities. It provides an opportunity to explore how the clinical trial road map fares in these settings.Whilst setting up BATH-OUT-2, we encountered challenges with securing funding for the trial, lack of non-NHS intervention costs, using research and support costs as intended, gaining approvals, identifying additional trial sites, and including people who lack the mental capacity to provide informed consent. Overall, our experience has been like navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map. In the UK, the clinical trial road map was developed for medical settings. Its key features are integrated within the NHS landscape but have been largely absent, unfamiliar, inaccessible, or irrelevant in social care and wider local authority terrain. Navigating the set-up of a clinical trial outside the NHS has been a complicated and disorientating journey.BATH-OUT-2 highlights how local authorities generally and adult social care specifically are a relatively new and certainly different type of setting for trials. Whilst this poses a challenge for conducting trials, it also presents an opportunity to question longstanding assumptions within trials practices, reimagine the conventional clinical trial road map, and take it in new directions. As the UK research landscape moves forward and becomes better primed for randomised evaluations in local authorities, we propose several suggestions for building on recent progress and advancing trials within adult social care and across health and care systems.

Effective interventions to increase representation of under-served groups in randomised trials in UK and Ireland: a scoping literature review

Background

Participants in clinical trials often do not reflect the populations that could benefit from the treatments being investigated. There are known barriers to trial participation for under-served groups, but limited evidence on strategies to alleviate these barriers to improve representation. This scoping review aimed to identify effective interventions and design features that improve the representation `of under-served groups in trials, focusing on the UK and Ireland.

Methods

We included methodological research studies that reported interventions to improve representation of ethnic minority groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, older people, or those with impaired capacity to consent to randomised controlled trials, conducted in the UK and Ireland, published between 2000-2021. Systematic searches were conducted in November 2021 and data were independently extracted by two authors and narratively synthesised.

Results

Seven studies were included: one randomised controlled study embedded in five trials, one mixed-methods study, and five studies reporting 'lessons learnt' from one trial. We categorised the 47 reported interventions or strategies into nine broad themes: Recruitment sites, recruitment settings, community engagement, and communication with participants, incentives, inclusion criteria, flexibility, patient documentation, and the consent process. Only 28/47 interventions were evaluated, 23 of which were comparison of recruitment pathways.The randomised study found that a £100 incentive mentioned in the invitation letter increased positive responses overall across drug trials in cardiovascular disease and hypertension, but not for older people or those living in the most deprived areas. Invitation letters via GPs and working with communities were reported as successful recruitment pathways in recruiting different under-served populations.

Conclusions

Interventions aiming to improve the recruitment of under-served groups in the UK and Ireland were reported across seven papers, but their effectiveness was rarely rigorously evaluated. Included studies were context specific. Using a variety of recruitment methods is likely to help achieve a more diverse cohort.

The National Institutes of Health INvestigation of Co-occurring conditions across the Lifespan to Understand Down syndromE (INCLUDE) Project: Accelerating research discoveries for people with Down syndrome across the lifespan

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a long-standing history of support for research in Down syndrome (DS). In response to a 2018 congressional directive for a trans-NIH initiative to address medical issues in DS, NIH launched the INCLUDE Project (INvestigation of Co-occurring conditions across the Lifespan to Understand Down syndromE). Reflecting the three INCLUDE components of basic science research, cohort development, and clinical trials, the Project has published funding opportunities to address conditions such as immune disorders and Alzheimer's disease. Due to a steady expansion in dedicated funding over its first 5 years, INCLUDE has invested $258 M in over 250 new research projects. INCLUDE also supports training initiatives to expand the number and diversity of investigators studying DS. NIH has funded an INCLUDE Data Coordinating Center that is collecting de-identified clinical information and multi-omics data from research participants for broad data sharing and secondary analyses. Through the DS-Connect® registry, INCLUDE investigators can access recruitment support. The INCLUDE Research Plan articulates research goals for the program, with an emphasis on diversity of research participants and investigators. Finally, a new Cohort Development Program is poised to increase the impact of the INCLUDE Project by recruiting a large DS cohort across the lifespan.

How do quantitative studies involving people with dementia report experiences of standardised data collection? A narrative synthesis of NIHR published studies

BACKGROUND

People with dementia are routinely included as research participants in trials and other quantitative studies in which they are invited to respond to standardised measures. This paper reviews the reporting of standardised data collection from people with dementia in reports published in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Journals Library. The aim was to understand how the administration of standardised, self-report measures with people with dementia is reported in NIHR monographs and what could be learnt from this about the feasibility and acceptability of data collection approaches for future studies.

METHODS

This was a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Broad search terms (Dementia OR Alzheimer*) were used to search the NIHR Journals Library website in December 2021. All studies that used (or intended to use) standardised measures to collect research data directly from people with dementia were eligible for inclusion. Information was extracted (where reported) on the process of data collection, dementia severity, levels of missing data and the experiences and reflections of those involved.

RESULTS

Searches returned 42 records, from which 17 reports were assessed as eligible for inclusion, containing 22 studies. Response rates from participants with dementia in these studies varied considerably and appeared to be related to dementia severity and place of residence. Little information was reported on the process of data collection or the reasons for missing data, and most studies did not report the experiences of participants or those administering the measures. However, there was an indication from two studies that standardised data collection could provoke emotional distress in some participants with dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this review we identified both variation in levels of missing data and gaps in reporting which make it difficult to ascertain the reasons for this variation. We also identified potential risks to the well-being of participants with dementia which may be associated with the content of standardised measures and the context of data collection. Open reporting of and reflection upon data collection processes and the experiences of people involved is essential to ensure both the success of future data collection and the wellbeing of study participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with Research on Research https://ror-hub.org/study/2905/ .

Improving the inclusion of an under-served group in trials: development and implementation of the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework

BACKGROUND

For the potential benefits of trials to reach all that they should, trials must be designed to ensure that those taking part reflect the population who will receive the intervention. However, adults with impaired capacity to consent are frequently excluded from trials - partly because researchers are unfamiliar with the legal and ethical frameworks and lack the necessary methodological expertise. Researchers identified a need for guidance on designing more inclusive trials. Building on the NIHR INCLUDE initiative, we developed the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework to help researchers design inclusive trials.

METHODS

The framework was developed over five phases: (1) establishing the scope and content of the framework and adapting the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework for this population; (2) scoping the relevance of the framework to different populations and piloting in a range of trials; (3) consulting people living with impairing conditions and carers to explore their views about the framework and identify missing content areas; (4) refining the framework; and (5) the development of an implementation toolkit of resources to support researchers using the framework.

RESULTS

The framework has two parts: a set of four key questions to help researchers identify who should be included in their trial, and a series of worksheets covering intervention design, recruitment and consent processes, data collection and analysis, and public involvement and dissemination. It is supported by a summary of the ethical and legal frameworks and a website of resources on capacity and consent. Implementation resources include infographics and animations, a library of completed frameworks, and facilitated workshops for researchers. The framework and toolkit were launched at a webinar (November 2022), with polling demonstrating an increase in attendees' awareness about research involving adults lacking capacity. A post-webinar survey found that stakeholders viewed the framework and toolkit as valuable tools to facilitate greater inclusion of this under-served population in trials. The framework is available online: https://www.capacityconsentresearch.com/include-impaired-capacity-to-consent-framework.html .

CONCLUSIONS

The INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework and implementation toolkit can support researchers to design more inclusive trials and other types of research studies. Further engagement, including with funders who are key to ensuring uptake, and evaluation is needed.

Underserved groups in dysphagia intervention trials in Parkinson's disease: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Underserved groups in Parkinson's disease (PD) intervention studies are well recognised. However, it remains unclear whether these exclusions apply to oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) intervention studies in PD. The aim of this scoping review was to identify characteristics of included participants and underserved groups in intervention studies in OD in PD.

METHODS

Six electronic databases and one trial registry were searched without language restrictions. Screening of studies and data extraction were independently conducted by four reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 26 studies included, none fully reported the participants' ethnicity. Where data was available, 70% of participants were male with a mean age of 68 years, mean PD duration of 7.26 years, median Hoehn and Yahr stage of 2.5, mild OD and mostly recruited from movement disorders clinics. Underserved groups were younger people (< 50 years), older people (≥ 80 years), women, non-white people, people with severe OD and PD, longer PD duration, other neurological conditions, cognitive impairment/dementia, and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful consideration of all characteristics of individuals with OD in PD is essential for improving the external validity of studies. This will enhance the generalisability of research findings to the broader PD population, ultimately strengthening the evidence base for OD interventions in PD.

Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning

BACKGROUND

Anticipatory planning in the UK focuses on supporting people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to express their wishes about future care through processes such as advance care planning. Other countries have extended anticipatory planning to include processes for people to prospectively express their preferences about research participation. Advance research planning (ARP) is thought to extend autonomy and ensure that 'proxy' decisions about research are based on their wishes and preferences.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with two stakeholder groups (members of the public including people living with capacity-affecting conditions and family members; researchers and other professionals) who were recruited via research registries and other routes. Online questionnaires were used to capture the perspectives of the two groups. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 327 participants (members of the public n = 277, professionals n = 50) completed the survey (November 2022 - March 2023). ARP was supported by 97% of public contributors and 94% of professionals. Participants thought that ARP should include the person's general wishes about research, specific types of studies, and who should make decisions on their behalf. They identified a number of challenges, including how ARP could take account of changes in individuals' preferences or circumstances whilst protecting their rights and interests. Implementation barriers included the potential time, complexity, and cost involved. These could be addressed by embedding ARP in existing anticipatory planning pathways and aligning it with other research enrolment activities. Relationships and trust played a key role, including underpinning who should support the delivery of ARP, how they are trained, and when it is undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

There were high levels of support for introducing ARP in the UK. Further research should explore practical barriers and stakeholder concerns and identify any unintended consequences. Future activities should include developing ARP interventions alongside training and other resources, and also focus on public awareness campaigns, and engaging policymakers and other stakeholders.

Increasing Diversity of Patients in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

Radiation oncology clinical trials lack full representation of the ethnic and racial diversity present in the general United States and in the cancer patient population. There are low rates of both recruitment and enrollment of individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial backgrounds, especially Black and Hispanic patients, people with disabilities, and patients from underrepresented sexual and gender groups. Even if approached for enrollment, barriers such as mistrust in medical research stemming from historical abuse and contemporary biased systems, low socioeconomic status, and lack of awareness prohibit historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical trials. In this review, we reflect on these specific barriers and detail approaches to increase diversity of the patient population in radiation oncology clinical trials to better reflect the communities we serve. We hope that implementation of these approaches will increase the diversity of clinical trials patient populations in not only radiation oncology but also other medical specialties.

Making an Advance Research Directive: An Interview Study with Adults Aged 55 and Older with Interests in Dementia Research

Many people with dementia are interested in taking part in research, including when they no longer have capacity to provide informed consent. Advance research directives (ARD) enable people to document their wishes about research participation prior to becoming decisionally incapacitated. However, there are few available ARD resources. This Australian interview study elicited the views of people aged 55 years and older about the content of an ARD form and guidance booklet and processes to support research planning. Participants (n = 25; 55 to 83 years) had interests in dementia research. All participants described the ARD materials as easy to understand, and all expressed willingness to take part in future research. Nearly half believed that an ARD should be legally enforceable, while others saw it as a nonbinding document to guide decisions about their participation in research. Close family members were preferred as proxy decision-makers. The ARD form and guidance booklet may be adapted for use elsewhere.

Inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and or communication in research: triangulation from a mixed-methods study of current practice and values across multiple stakeholders

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to: (A) describe researcher decision-making when including or excluding adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication in research and (B) explore the underlying values and reasoning of stakeholders in research which falls under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005.

DESIGN

The mixed-methods design included semistructured interviews with adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication, supporters, researchers, research ethics committee members and an online survey with researchers. Triangulation was used to integrate the data and examine the complementarity of the findings.

SETTING

England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 61 participants who took part in semistructured interviews, of which 39 were adults with conditions with potential to affect capacity and/or communication, 6 were in support roles for adults with conditions with potential to affect capacity and/or communication (including family members and professionals in advocacy organisations), 8 were members of research ethics committees flagged under the Mental Capacity Act to review research where there could be issues of mental capacity and 8 were researchers with experience of working with adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication. The online survey had 128 participants, researchers with experience of working with adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication.

RESULTS

All stakeholders were supportive of the genuine inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication in research, and exclusion was seen as a form of discrimination. Many researchers were daunted by meeting the threshold within the legislation for including participants who may lack capacity.

CONCLUSION

Further training, expertise and resources are required to promote the successful inclusion in research of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication.

Barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Underrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: 'What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?'.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes.

RESULTS

The review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Both barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study design should prioritise principles of co-design and be informed by a data-driven assessment of needs for the study population. Person-centred approaches to consent that empower disabled people to exercise their right to choose should be adopted in inclusive practice. Implementing these recommendations stands to improve inclusive practices in clinical trial research, serving to produce a well-rounded and comprehensive evidence base.

A call to action for more disability-inclusive health policy and systems research

To date, the exclusion of people with disability participating in research has limited the evidence base informing health system strengthening policy and practice more generally, and addressing disability-related inequalities in access to health services and better health outcomes more particularly. Given that more than 1 billion people, or 16% of the world's population, have a disability, we may fail to respond to the needs of a large proportion of the population unless we are purposeful with inclusion. Our research in this area indicates that online qualitative methods can be effective in engaging under-represented groups and are essential to ensure their input into health policy and systems research. This has important implications for researchers whose responsibility it is to make all health research disability inclusive, for ethical and methodological reasons, so they do not perpetuate the under-representation of people with disability in health policy and systems research. Our paper puts forward several recommendations to facilitate more people with disability participating in health policy and systems research. By critically reflecting on a health system strengthening research project, in which we purposefully aimed to support the participation of people with disability, we identify lessons learnt and issues to consider when planning and conducting accessible research. We also propose a set of actions for moving the agenda forward.

Evaluating an informed consent process designed to improve inclusion of adults with intellectual disability in research

BACKGROUND

Adults with intellectual disability (ID) are both underrepresented in research and enrolled in studies they may not understand. Instead of facilitating research engagement, the informed consent process often fails to elucidate its essential elements.

AIMS

We evaluated whether a novel informed consent process was more effective than current practice at helping adults with ID understand key elements of research.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

21 adults with ID completed a novel iterative teaching process (ITP) for teaching and assessing informed consent. The ITP was used to compare the baseline (Conventional) approach to an Easy Read and a Conversational approach. Participants were asked a series of questions to assess their attitudes toward, and their comprehension of, the materials.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

The pilot found encouraging evidence for the efficacy and feasibility of the ITP. The two novel ITP approaches were both superior to current practice.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This project contributes to a growing literature by introducing a process for teaching and evaluating informed consent. Results indicate that comprehension of informed consent materials can be taught to, and learned by, adults with ID with proper accommodations.

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.

Clinical research for life-threatening illnesses requiring emergency hospitalisation: a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data related to the experience of participants and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Research into life-threatening illnesses which require emergency hospitalisation is essential. This group of patients is unique in that they are experiencing an unfolding emergency when they are approached, enrolled, and followed up in a research study. We aimed to synthesise qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers to deepen our understanding and inform the design and conduct of future clinical trials for life-threatening illnesses.

METHODS

We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers related to the experience of participating in a clinical research study when suffering from a life-threatening illness. A scoping review informed a systematic review of published data. We searched research databases and reviewed papers for inclusion. Primary data and interpretations of data were extracted from each paper. Data were analysed using reciprocal translational analysis, refutational synthesis, and lines of argument synthesis to develop a synthetic construct.

RESULTS

Twenty-two papers were included. Most individuals had no previous knowledge or experience with clinical research. Individuals making decisions were directly experiencing or witness to an unfolding emergency which came with a myriad of physical and psychological symptoms. It was difficult to differentiate clinical research and routine care, and understanding of core concepts around research, particularly randomisation and equipoise, was limited. We found that this led to an underestimation of risk, an overestimation of benefit, and an expectation of being allocated to the intervention arm. The decision-making process was heavily influenced by trust in the research team. Individuals suggested that abbreviated information, presented in different ways and continuously throughout the research process, would have increased knowledge and satisfaction with the research process.

CONCLUSION

Individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness who are being invited to participate in clinical research need to be managed in a way that adapts to the severity of their illness and there is a need to tailor research processes, including informed consent, accordingly. We provide suggestions for further research and implementation work around research participation for individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020207296.

Advance planning for research participation: Time to translate this innovation into practice

OBJECTIVES

Advance planning for research is a process that involves thinking about, discussing and expressing preferences for taking part in research during future periods of incapacity. The process may include making an advance research directive and naming trusted people to be involved in decisions about research participation. Advance research planning could help to overcome barriers to including people with dementia in research. To encourage innovation in this area, this article presents recommendations informed by a stakeholder workshop that brought together consumer representatives and representatives active in dementia, ageing and health-related research, policy-making, advocacy and service delivery in health and aged care.

METHODS

An online workshop where 15 stakeholders shared perspectives and suggestions for implementing advance research planning, with a focus on research involving people with dementia.

RESULTS

Raising awareness of advance research planning requires multi-faceted strategies. Training and resources are needed for researchers, ethics committees and organisations regarding this form of advance planning and the use of research directives. Like any form of advance planning, planning ahead for research must be a voluntary, informed and person-centred process. There is a lack of uniform legal rules on research involving people who lack the capacity to consent; however, advance research directives could, in principle, inform decisions about research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

As a matter of law, policy and practice, people are encouraged to plan ahead in many areas of their life. Research planning has been relatively neglected, and the recommendations offered here aim to encourage innovation in research and implementation in this area.

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.

Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale)

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of adults lacking the capacity to consent to trials requires the involvement of an alternative 'proxy' decision-maker, usually a family member. This can be challenging for family members, with some experiencing emotional and decisional burdens. Interventions to support proxy consent decisions in non-emergency settings are being developed. However, the ability to evaluate interventions is limited due to a lack of measures that capture outcomes of known importance, as identified through a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

Using established measure development principles, a four-stage process was used to develop and refine items for a new measure of proxy decision quality: (1) findings from a recent scoping review and consensus study were reviewed to identify items for inclusion in the scale and any existing outcome measures, (2) assessment of content coverage by existing measures and identification of insufficiency, (3) construction of a novel scale, and (4) cognitive testing to explore comprehension of the scale and test its content adequacy through interviews with family members of people with impaired capacity.

RESULTS

A range of outcome measures associated with healthcare decision-making and informed consent decisions, such as the Decisional Conflict Scale, were identified in the scoping review. These measures were mapped against the key constructs identified in the COS to assess content coverage. Insufficient coverage of areas such as proxy-specific satisfaction and knowledge sufficiency by existing instruments indicated that a novel measure was needed. An initial version of a combined measure (the CONCORD scale) was drafted and tested during cognitive interviews with eleven family members. The interviews established comprehension, acceptability, feasibility, and content adequacy of the scale. Participants suggested re-phrasing and re-ordering some questions, leading to the creation of a revised version.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONCORD scale provides a brief measure to evaluate the quality of decisions made on behalf of an adult who lacks the capacity to consent in non-emergency settings, enabling the evaluation of interventions to improve proxy decision quality. Initial evaluation indicates it has content adequacy and is feasible to use. Further statistical validation work is being undertaken.

Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs)

BACKGROUND

The number of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of participants in trials is rising, with a corresponding growth in randomised Studies Within Trials (SWATs) to evaluate their (cost-)effectiveness. Despite recognised challenges in conducting trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent, until now, no individual-level recruitment interventions have focused on this population. Following the development of a decision aid for family members making non-emergency trial participation decisions on behalf of people with impaired capacity, we have designed a SWAT to evaluate the decision aid in a number of host trials (CONSULT). Unlike in recruitment SWATs to date, the CONSULT intervention is aimed at a 'proxy' decision-maker (a family member) who is not a participant in the host trial and does not receive the trial intervention. This commentary explores the methodological and ethical considerations encountered when designing such SWATs, using the CONSULT SWAT as a case example. Potential solutions to address these issues are also presented.

DISCUSSION

We encountered practical issues around informed consent, data collection, and follow-up which involves linking the intervention receiver (the proxy) with recruitment and retention data from the host trial, as well as issues around randomisation level, resource use, and maintaining the integrity of the host trial. Unless addressed, methodological uncertainty about differential recruitment and heterogeneity between trial populations could potentially limit the scope for drawing robust inferences and harmonising data from different SWAT host trials. Proxy consent is itself ethically complex, and so when conducting a SWAT which aims to disrupt and enhance proxy consent decisions, there are additional ethical issues to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing a SWAT to evaluate a recruitment intervention for non-emergency trials with adults lacking capacity to consent has raised a number of methodological and ethical considerations. Explicating these challenges, and some potential ways to address them, creates a starting point for discussions about conducting these potentially more challenging SWATs. Increasing the evidence base for the conduct of trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent is intended to improve both the ability to conduct these trials and their quality, and so help build research capacity for this under-served population.

Lessons learned from two clinical trials on nutritional supplements to reduce aggressive behaviour

BACKGROUND

Setting up and conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) has many challenges-particularly trials that include vulnerable individuals with behavioural problems or who reside in facilities that focus on care as opposed to research. These populations are underrepresented in RCTs.

APPROACH

In our paper, we describe the challenges and practical lessons learned from two RCTs in two care settings involving long-stay psychiatric inpatients and people with intellectual disabilities. We describe five main difficulties and how these were overcome: (1) multisite setting, (2) inclusion of vulnerable participants, (3) nutritional supplements and placebos, (4) assessment of behavioural outcomes, and (5) collecting bio samples.

CONCLUSIONS

By sharing these practical experiences, we hope to inform other researchers how to optimally design their trials, while avoiding and minimising the difficulties that we encountered, and to facilitate the implementation of a trial. Both trials were registered in the Clinical Trials Register (RCT A: NCT02498106; RCT B: NCT03212092).

Unpacking the 'black box of horrendousness': a qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent

Background

Trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent encounter a range of ethical and methodological challenges, resulting in these populations frequently being excluded from research. Currently, there is little evidence regarding the nature and extent of these challenges, nor strategies to improve the design and conduct of such trials. This qualitative study explored researchers’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely with 26 researchers and healthcare professionals with experience in a range of roles, trial populations and settings across the UK. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

A number of inter-related barriers and facilitators were identified and mapped against key trial processes including during trial design decisions, navigating ethical approval, assessing capacity, identifying and involving alternative decision-makers and when revisiting consent. Three themes were identified: (1) the perceived and actual complexity of trials involving adults lacking capacity, (2) importance of having access to appropriate support and resources and (3) need for building greater knowledge and expertise to support future trials. Barriers to trials included the complexity of the legal frameworks, the role of gatekeepers, a lack of access to expertise and training, and the resource-intensive nature of these trials. The ability to conduct trials was facilitated by having prior experience with these populations, effective communication between research teams, public involvement contributions, and the availability of additional data to inform the trial. Participants also identified a range of context-specific recruitment issues and highlighted the importance of ‘designing in’ flexibility and the use of adaptive strategies which were especially important for trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants identified a need for better training and support.

Conclusions

Researchers encountered a number of barriers, including both generic and context or population-specific challenges, which may be reinforced by wider factors such as resource limitations and knowledge deficits. Greater access to expertise and training, and the development of supportive interventions and tailored guidance, is urgently needed in order to build research capacity in this area and facilitate the successful delivery of trials involving this under-served population.

Trials using deferred consent in the emergency setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of stakeholders' attitudes

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute conditions often lack the capacity to provide informed consent, and narrow therapeutic windows mean there is no time to seek consent from surrogates prior to treatment being commenced. One method to enable the inclusion of this study population in emergency research is through recruitment without prior consent, often known as 'deferred consent'. However, empirical studies have shown a large disparity in stakeholders' opinions regarding this enrolment method. This systematic review aimed to understand different stakeholder groups' attitudes to deferred consent, particularly in relation to the context in which deferred consent might occur.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, EMCare, PsychINFO, Scopus, and HMIC were searched from 1996 to January 2021. Eligible studies focussed on deferred consent processes for adults only, in the English language, and reported empirical primary research. Studies of all designs were included. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded using a narrative approach to 'tell a story' of the findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority examined patient views (n = 19). Data from the members of the public (n = 5) and health care professionals (n =5) were also reported. Four overarching themes were identified: level of acceptability of deferred consent, research-related factors influencing acceptability, personal characteristics influencing views on deferred consent, and data use after refusal of consent or participant death.

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that the use of deferred consent would be most acceptable to stakeholders during low-risk emergency research with a narrow therapeutic window and where there is potential for patients to benefit from their inclusion. While the use of narrative synthesis allowed assessment of the included studies, heterogeneous outcome measures meant that variations in study results could not be reliably attributed to the different trial characteristics. Future research should aim to develop guidance for research ethics committees when reviewing trials using deferred consent in emergency research and investigate more fully the views of healthcare professionals which to date have been explored less than patients and members of the public. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020223623.

Evaluation of Recruitment Strategies for Home-Living Vulnerable Older Adults With Depression: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Psychotherapy Trial

OBJECTIVE

Vulnerable older adults, such as physically impaired or care-dependent individuals, are vastly underrepresented in psychotherapy research. Improving their inclusion in randomized controlled trials is necessary to determine the effectiveness of psychotherapy in this population. This study is the first to systematically evaluate strategies to recruit home-living vulnerable older adults with clinically significant depression into a large randomized controlled psychotherapy trial. Potential participants were approached directly (self-referral) or via cooperation with gatekeepers (gatekeeper-referral).

METHODS

Successful recruitment strategies and the person initiating the first contact with the study team were recorded. Recruitment strategies were compared with respect to the number of inquiries and inclusion rates, study personnel's time investment, and participant characteristics (sociodemographics, functional and cognitive status, depression and anxiety scores).

RESULTS

Most of the N = 197 participants were included via gatekeeper-referral (80.5%, 95% confidence interval = [74.9, 86.1]), but time investment for gatekeeper-referrals was five times higher than for self-referral by media reports. Clinical psychologists and medical practitioners referred the largest proportion of participants (32.3% each) and referral by medical practitioners led to highest inclusion rates (55.6%; χ²(3) = 8.964, p <0.05). Most participants were referred from a hospital setting (50.3%), whereas referral numbers by medical practices were low (15.9%). Participants who initiated the first contact themselves had higher inclusion rates and were less functionally impaired.

CONCLUSION

Including home-living vulnerable older adults into psychotherapy trials requires simultaneous implementation of diverse recruitment strategies. Medical practitioners and psychologists, especially in hospitals, are the most effective recruitment strategy, but self-referral via media is most cost-efficient in terms of time investment.

Inclusion and diversity in clinical trials: Actionable steps to drive lasting change

BACKGROUND

Improving diversity in clinical trials is essential in order to produce generalizable results. Although the importance of representation has become increasingly recognized, identifying strategies to approach this work remains elusive. This article reviews the proceedings of a multi-stakeholder conference about the current state of diversity in clinical trials and outlines actionable steps for improvement.

METHODS

Conference attendees included representatives from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), practicing clinical investigators, pharmaceutical and device companies, community-based organizations, data analytics companies, and patient advocacy groups. At this virtual event, attendees were asked to consider key questions around best practices for engagement of underrepresented populations.

RESULTS

Community engagement is an integral part of recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups. Decentralization of sites and use of digital tools can enhance the accessibility of clinical research. Finally, improving representation among investigators and clinical research staff may translate to diverse clinical trial participants.

CONCLUSION

Improving diversity in clinical trials is an ethical and scientific imperative, which requires a multifaceted approach.

'Do I have the capacity to make capacity judgements?' Researcher reflections from a person-centred dementia support study

Background and purpose

Adults lacking capacity are under-represented in research; therefore, the evidence-base surrounding their support needs is inferior compared to other populations. Involving this group in research is fraught with challenges, including researcher uncertainties about how to carry out capacity judgements. Whilst ethical guidelines and principles provide overarching guidance, there is a lack of detailed guidance and evidence-based training, incorporating practical ‘on the ground’ strategies and advice on communication practices. Experiences and reflections on research procedures used to gauge and address capacity are under reported, resulting in a lack of shared knowledge within the field.

Design

To help address this, we engaged in researcher (co)meta-reflection on the informed capacity judgement procedure for initial consent, within our current, person-centred dementia intervention feasibility study. Our objective was to identify areas to improve our approach, but to also put forward suggestions for wider change within ethical research practice.

Results

Findings reveal challenges and facilitators relating to six areas: ‘Conducting time sensitive research whilst remaining person-centred and building relationships’; ‘Information sharing and supporting communication’; ‘Applying the process flexibly’; ‘The role of the carer and the consultee process’; ‘Judging assent and dissent’ and ‘Researcher related factors’. We questioned our ‘capacity to make capacity judgements’ in terms of both our skills and research time constraints.

Conclusions

Based on our experiences, we argue for greater open discussion between researchers, Patient and Public Involvement contributors and Research Ethics Committees at initial project planning stages. We recommend training and guidance focuses on building researcher skills in applying a standard process flexibly, emphasising naturalistic, conversational approaches to capacity judgement. A crucial consideration for funders is how this time-intensive and sensitive work should be factored into bid application templates and funding grants. Learnings from this article have potential to inform evidence-based guidance and training for researchers, consultees, funders, reviewers and ethics committees.

Effects of multivitamin, mineral and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on aggression among long-stay psychiatric in-patients: randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Aggression and violent incidents are a major concern in psychiatric in-patient care. Nutritional supplementation has been found to reduce aggressive incidents and rule violations in forensic populations and children with behavioural problems.

AIMS

To assess whether multivitamin, mineral and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation would reduce the number of aggressive incidents among long-stay psychiatric in-patients.

METHOD

The trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Data were collected from 25 July 2016 to 29 October 2019, at eight local sites for mental healthcare in The Netherlands and Belgium. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive 6-month treatment with either three supplements containing multivitamins, minerals and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of aggressive incidents, determined by the Staff Observation Aggression Scale - Revised (SOAS-R). Secondary outcomes were patient quality of life, affective symptoms and adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 176 participants were randomised (supplements, n = 87; placebo, n = 89). Participants were on average 49.3 years old (s.d. 14.5) and 64.2% were male. Most patients had a psychotic disorder (60.8%). The primary outcome of SOAS-R incidents was similar in supplement (1.03 incidents per month, 95% CI 0.74-1.37) and placebo groups (0.90 incidents per month, 95% CI 0.65-1.19), with a rate ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 0.67-1.74, P = 0.75). Differential effects were not found in sensitivity analyses on the SOAS-R or on secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Six months of nutritional supplementation did not reduce aggressive incidents among long-stay psychiatric in-patients.

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER Study)

BACKGROUND

Trials involving adults who lack capacity to provide consent rely on proxy or surrogate decision-makers, usually a family member, to make decisions about participation. Interventions to enhance proxy decisions about trial participation are now being developed. However, a lack of standardised outcome measures limits evaluation of these interventions. The aim of this study was to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating interventions to improve proxy decisions about trial participation.

METHODS

We used established methods to develop the COS including a consensus study with key stakeholder groups comprising those who will use the COS in research (researchers and healthcare professionals) and patients or their representatives. Following a scoping review to identify candidate items, we used a modified two-round Delphi survey to achieve consensus on core outcomes, with equivocal items taken to a consensus meeting for discussion. The COS was finalised following an online consensus meeting in October 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 28 UK stakeholders (5 researchers, 10 trialists, 3 patient/family representatives, 7 recruiters and 3 advisors/approvers) participated in the online Delphi survey to rank candidate items from the scoping review (n = 36) and additional items proposed by participants (n = 1). Items were broadly grouped into three categories: how family members make decisions, their experiences of making decisions, and the personal aspects that influence the decision. Following the Delphi survey, 27 items were included and ten items exhibited no consensus which required discussion at the consensus meeting. Sixteen participants attended the meeting, including additional patient/family representatives invited to increase representation from this key group (n = 2). We reached consensus for the inclusion of 28 outcome items, including one selected at the consensus meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified outcomes that should be measured as a minimum in all evaluations of interventions to enhance proxy decisions about trials. These relate to the process of decision-making, proxies' experience of decision-making, and factors that influence decision-making such as understanding. Further work with people with impairing conditions and their families is needed to explore their views about the COS and to identify appropriate outcome measures and timing of measurement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered on the COMET database ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1409 ).

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the research provisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) in England and Wales: Recruitment of adults with capacity and communication difficulties

BACKGROUND

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) and its accompanying Code of Practice (2007), govern research participation for adults with capacity and communication difficulties in England and Wales. We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the application of these provisions from 2007 to 2019.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included studies with mental capacity in their criteria, involving participants aged 16 years and above, with capacity-affecting conditions and conducted in England and Wales after the implementation of the MCA. Clinical trials of medicines were excluded. We searched seven databases: Academic Search Complete, ASSIA, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PsycINFO and Science Direct. We used narrative synthesis to report our results. Our review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020195652. 28 studies of various research designs met our eligibility criteria: 14 (50.0%) were quantitative, 12 (42.9%) qualitative and 2 (7.1%) mixed methods. Included participants were adults with intellectual disabilities (n = 12), dementia (n = 9), mental health disorders (n = 2), autism (n = 3) and aphasia after stroke (n = 2). We found no studies involving adults with acquired brain injury. Diverse strategies were used in the recruitment of adults with capacity and communication difficulties with seven studies excluding individuals deemed to lack capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found relatively few studies including adults with capacity and communication difficulties with existing regulations interpreted variably. Limited use of consultees and exclusions on the basis of capacity and communication difficulties indicate that this group continue to be under-represented in research. If health and social interventions are to be effective for this population, they need to be included in primary research. The use of strategic adaptations and accommodations during the recruitment process, may serve to support their inclusion.

Unethical governance: capacity legislation and the exclusion of people diagnosed with dementias from research

This paper considers the potential for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) of England and Wales to incentivise the exclusion of people with dementia from research. The MCA is intended to standardise and safeguard the inclusion of people with cognitive impairments in research. This entails various procedural requirements, which in pressurised research contexts can lead researchers to exclude people with dementia as a means of simplifying bureaucratic constraints. I consider the risks of an ‘unethical ethics’, wherein procedural ethics indirectly causes the exclusion of people with dementia from research, undermining historic successes toward increased inclusivity. I suggest several solutions, including enhanced sensitivity to impairments and shifting the burden of proof from justifying inclusion to justifying exclusion. The paper responds to the ‘ethics creep’ tradition in procedural ethics, and critical appraisals of capacity legislation in dementia research. This approach recognises that institutional research ethics is itself a major ethical concern and can unwittingly beget unethical practices. Dementia researchers must be alert to such unethical ethics.

Effect of antibiotics in preventing hospitalizations from respiratory tract infections in children with Down syndrome

BACKGROUND

Children with Down syndrome (DS) are at high risk of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) due to anatomical variations, comorbidities, and immune system immaturity. Evidence on interventions to reduce this risk is incomplete. This study aims to quantify the effect of antibiotics prescribed for RTIs in primary care on the subsequent risk of RTI-related hospitalization for children with DS versus controls.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 992 children with DS and 4874 controls managed by UK National Health Service General Practitioners (GPs) and hospitals as identified in CALIBER (Clinical disease research using LInked Bespoke studies and Electronic health Records), 1997-2010. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were undertaken.

RESULTS

In children with DS, the prescription of antibiotics following an RTI-related GP consultation did not significantly reduce the risk of RTI-related hospitalization in the subsequent 28 days (risk with antibiotics, 1.8%; without, 2.5%; risk ratio, 0.699; 95% confidence interval, 0.471-1.036). Subgroup analyses showed a risk reduction only in infants with DS, after adjustment for covariates. There was no reduction in risk for controls, overall or across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, while prescription of antibiotics following RTI-related GP consultations were effective for infants with DS in reducing subsequent RTI-related hospitalization, this was not the case for older children with DS. We would encourage further high-quality cohort and randomized controlled trials to interrogate this finding, and to examine the impact of antibiotics on other endpoints, including symptom duration.

Inclusion under the Mental Capacity Act (2005): A review of research policy guidance and governance structures in England and Wales

Objective

To investigate how people with communication and understanding difficulties, associated with conditions such as dementia, autism and intellectual disability, are represented in research guidance supplementary to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA: 2005) in England and Wales.

Methods

A documentary survey was conducted. The sample comprised the MCA Code of Practice (CoP: 2007) and 14 multi‐authored advisory documents that were publicly available on the Health Research Authority website. Textual review of key words was conducted followed by summative content analysis.

Results

Representation of people with communication and understanding difficulties was confined to procedural information and position statements that focused mainly on risk management and protection. Whilst a need to engage potential participants was recognized, guidance provided was imprecise.

Conclusions

Tensions exist between the protection versus empowerment of people with communication and understanding difficulties in research. The development of structured, evidence‐based guidance is indicated.

Patient or public contribution

People with communication and understanding difficulties and carers participated in a working group to explore, discuss and interpret the findings.

Building relational research capacity in care homes in the COVID-19 era: applying recognition theory to the research agenda

Purpose

Research can be an influential driver in raising care home standards and the well-being and human rights of residents. This paper aims to present a case for how a relational research capacity building programme could advance this agenda.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses Axel Honneth’s Recognition Theory as a lens through which to explore organisational and institutional factors (such as research capacity and investment) that can either enable or limit “recognition” in the context of research in care homes. This paper draws on recent evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and worldwide, to argue that such a relational capacity building agenda is even more pressing in the current context, and that it resonates with evidence from existing relational capacity building initiatives.

Findings

A lack of relevant research arguably contributed to the crisis experienced by the care home sector early in the pandemic, and there are only tentative signs that residents, care home providers and staff are now informing the COVID-19 research agenda. Evidence from pre COVID-19 and insights from Honneth’s Recognition Theory suggest that relational approaches to building research capacity within the care home sector can better generate evidence to inform practice.

Originality/value

This is a novel application of recognition theory to research in the care home sector. Drawing on theory, as well as evidence, has enabled the authors to provide a rationale as to why relationship-based research capacity building in care homes warrants further investment.