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

Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals

BACKGROUND

Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research.

METHODS

A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

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.

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.

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.

Physical rehabilitation for people with advanced dementia who fracture their hip - expert consensus process

PURPOSE

Hip fracture is common in older people - with prevalence even higher for people with dementia. Research often excludes people with dementia - especially those in the more advanced stages. Therefore, the most appropriate interventions remain unknown. The main aim of this study was to gain consensus about the core considerations needed to deliver a physical intervention for people with advanced dementia who fracture their hip. Materials and Methods: An expert consensus process was undertaken, using Nominal Group Technique, to explore the key considerations when delivering rehabilitation. Data collection was undertaken in January 2023 and involved an online group discussion followed by voting and off-line rating. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative analysis of consensus scoring was undertaken. An international group of seven highly specialised physiotherapists took part.

RESULTS

59 statements were agreed following the process. Content analysis was used to categorise these statements according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Although consensus levels were high, there was disagreement in several areas.

CONCLUSION

The statements provide an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population. People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe expert consensus provides an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population.Physiotherapy - or other interventions - cannot be used in isolation.People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.While our focus was on hip fracture, we suggest these statements can be used for people with advanced dementia with a variety of other conditions.

Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework

BACKGROUND

Older people are often explicitly or implicitly excluded from research, in particular clinical trials. This means that study findings may not be applicable to them, or that older people may not be offered treatments due to an absence of evidence.

AIMS

The aim of this work was to develop recommendations to guide all research relevant to older people.

METHODS

A diverse stakeholder group identified barriers and solutions to including older people in research. In parallel, a rapid literature review of published papers was undertaken to identify existing papers on the inclusion of older people in research. The findings were synthesised and mapped onto a socio-ecological model. From the synthesis we identified themes that were developed into initial recommendations that were iteratively refined with the stakeholder group.

RESULTS

A range of individual, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy factors impact on the inclusion of older people in research. A total of 14 recommendations were developed such as removing upper age limits and comorbidity exclusions, involving older people, advocates and health and social care professionals with expertise in ageing in designing the research, and considering flexible or alternative approaches to data collection to maximise opportunities for participation. We also developed four questions that may guide those developing, reviewing and funding research that is inclusive of older people.

CONCLUSION

Our recommendations provide up to date, practical advice on ways to improve the inclusion of older people in health and care research.

The ethnographer, the research participants, and the meaningful others: Gray zones of relationality and the ethics of dementia care research

The debate on the ethics of dementia research has tended to treat individuals with dementia, primary caregivers other family members and local communities as preestablished and distinct categories of research participants. What has been overlooked are the meaningful social relationships that run through these categories and how these relationships affect the ethnographer's positionality during and after fieldwork. In this paper, drawing on two cases of ethnographic research on family dementia care in North Italy, we propose two heuristic devices, "meaningful others" and "gray zones", which highlight the ambiguous positionality of ethnographers in care relations and local moral worlds. We further show the benefit of incorporating these devices in discussions on the ethics of dementia care research: by rendering problematic any fixed and polarized positionality of the ethnographer, these two devices allow for a voice to be given to the individuals who represent the main research focus while addressing the interdependence and ethically nuanced dimension of caring relations.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.