Exploring the inclusion of under-served groups in trials methodology research: an example from ethnic minority populations' views on deferred consent

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.

Learning from stakeholders to inform good practice guidance on consent to research in intensive care units: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Obtaining informed consent from patients in intensive care units (ICUs) prior to enrolment in a study is practically and ethically complex. Decisions about the participation of critically ill patients in research often involve substitute decision makers (SDMs), such as a patient's relatives or doctors. We explored the perspectives of different stakeholder groups towards these consent procedures.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Mixed-methods study comprising surveys completed by ICU patients, their relatives and healthcare practitioners in 14 English ICUs, followed by qualitative interviews with a subset of survey participants. Empirical bioethics informed the analysis and synthesis of the data. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics of Likert responses, and analysis of interview data was informed by thematic reflective approaches.

RESULTS

Analysis included 1409 survey responses (ICU patients n=333, relatives n=488, healthcare practitioners n=588) and 60 interviews (ICU patients n=13, relatives n=30, healthcare practitioners n=17). Most agreed with relatives acting as SDMs based on the perception that relatives often know the patient well enough to reflect their views. While the practice of doctors serving as SDMs was supported by most survey respondents, a quarter (25%) disagreed. Views were more positive at interview and shifted markedly depending on particularities of the study. Participants also wanted reassurance that patient care was prioritised over research recruitment. Findings lend support for adaptations to consent procedures, including collaborative decision-making to correct misunderstandings of the implications of research for that patient. This empirical evidence is used to develop good practice guidance that is to be published separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants largely supported existing consent procedures, but their perspectives on these consent procedures depended on their perceptions of what the research involved and the safeguards in place. Findings point to the importance of explaining clearly what safeguards are in place to protect the patient.

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.