Patient perceptions of the challenges of recruitment to a renal randomised trial registry: a pilot questionnaire-based study

"Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining": a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. However, conventional RCTs are typically complex, expensive, and have narrow eligibility criteria, which limits generalisability. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of an RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCT is a novel research design, there has been limited research on the feasibility and acceptability of RRCTs from the patients' and trial team's perspectives. This study aims to explore patients', clinicians', and study coordinators' perspectives towards participation in and conduct of oncology RRCTs in Australia.

METHODS

Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 cancer patients, 15 clinicians, and 7 study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) enablers and barriers to recruitment and enrolment of patients in RRCTs, (2) experiences of patients participating in RRCTs, and (3) recommendations for the implementation of future RRCTs. For patients, altruism and "trust in the clinician" were key reasons to participate in a RRCT. For clinicians and clinical trial coordinators, the RRCT study design was perceived as "simple and straightforward" but "less exciting" than RCTs. Competition from commercially sponsored RCTs poses challenges for investigator-led RRCTs recruitment, particularly if eligible patient numbers are low. There were limited impacts on patients' treatment experiences and clinicians' clinical workflow given that the RRCTs explored different standards of care. Recommendations to improve the enrolment of patients in RRCTs included generating greater buy-in from clinicians by increasing awareness of RRCTs via education initiatives and broader promotion of the "selling point" of RRCTs and providing monetary compensation to hospitals for enrolling patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst patients, clinicians, and study coordinators were generally supportive of RRCTs, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation in oncology were identified. Developing strategies to increase acceptance of the methodology by clinicians will help enhance the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

Non-oncology clinical trial engagement in a nationally representative sample: Identification of motivators and barriers

BACKGROUND

Enrollment in non-oncology clinical trials is often challenging and social determinants that may serve as motivators or barriers to clinical trial enrollment are largely unexplored. We sought to assess engagement in non-oncology clinical trials with a focus on social determinants of health as barriers or motivators toward participation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of non-cancer respondents was conducted using the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in 2020. Our analytic cohort was comprised of respondents with no reported history of cancer. Our primary outcome of interest was trial engagement defined as receiving an invitation to participate in a clinical trial. Secondary outcomes included participation in a clinical trial and reported motivators and barriers to clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

A total of 3113 respondents with no reported history of cancer were included. Overall, 8.1% of respondents reported being invited to participate in a clinical trial. Amongst those invited to participate, 47.7% reported participating in a clinical trial. Respondents reported that clinical trial participation was motivated "somewhat" or "a lot" by "wanting to get better" (80.5%), "helping other people" (61.4%), "physician encouragement" (60.6%), "getting a chance to try new care" (60.2%), "family friend encouragement" (54.2%), or "getting paid" (50.0%). Overall, 82.5% of all respondents "don't know anything" or have "a little knowledge" about clinical trials. Reported barriers to clinical trial participation including getting transportation, childcare or paid time off work (48.4%) and standard of care not covered by insurance (62.0%) influenced the decision to participate "somewhat" or "a lot."

CONCLUSION

Amongst a nationally representative sample, non-oncology clinical trial invitation is low, but participation amongst those invited is nearly 50%. This highlights the need for clinician engagement in clinical trials. Identifying modifiable social determinants of non-oncologic clinical trial participation may help promote improved engagement.