1
|
Farrar N, Elliott D, Jepson M, Young B, Donovan JL, Conefrey C, Realpe AX, Mills N, Wade J, Lim E, Stein RC, Caskey FJ, Rooshenas L. The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs. Trials 2024; 25:829. [PMID: 39695876 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08656-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 11/25/2024] [Indexed: 12/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although the challenges of recruiting to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented, few studies have focused on the impact that the communication between recruiters and patients has on patients' participation decisions. Recruiters are thought to influence patient decision-making, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. The aim of this research was to investigate how patients interpret and use the information conveyed to them by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in trial participation decisions. METHODS Three pragmatic UK-based multicentre RCTs were purposively sampled to provide contrasting clinical specialities. Data collection was integrated into each RCT, including audio-recordings of patient recruitment consultations and interviews with patients. Where possible, consultation audio-recordings were linked to interviews to explore how information communicated by recruiters was interpreted and used by patients during their decision-making. Data were analysed thematically, using the constant comparison approach. RESULTS Twenty audio-recorded recruitment consultations were obtained across the 3 RCTs, combined with 42 interviews with patients who had consented to or declined RCT participation. Consultation and interview data were 'linked' for 17 individual patients. Throughout the patient's clinical pathway, HCPs (both those involved in the RCT and not) influenced patients' perceptions of treatment need and benefit by indicating that they preferred a particular treatment option for the patient as an individual. Whilst patients valued and were influenced by information conveyed by HCPs, they also drew on support from other sources and ultimately framed RCT participation decisions as their own. Patients' willingness to be randomised hinged on perceptions of whether they stood to benefit from a particular treatment and the availability of those treatments outside of the trial. CONCLUSION This study supports the need for training and support for healthcare professionals involved throughout the clinical pathway of patients eligible for RCTs, as all healthcare professionals who interact with patients have the potential to influence their perceptions of treatments being compared in the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION OPTIMA ISRCTN42400492. Prospectively registered on 26 June 2012. Prepare for Kidney Care ISRCTN17133653. Prospectively registered on 31 May 2017. MARS 2 ISRCTN44351742. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Farrar
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Daisy Elliott
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Marcus Jepson
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Bridget Young
- Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Carmel Conefrey
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Alba X Realpe
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Eric Lim
- The Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Sydney Street, London, UK
| | - Robert C Stein
- National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Fergus J Caskey
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cooper KG, Bhattacharya S, Daniels JP, Cheed V, Gennard L, Leighton L, Pirie D, Melyda M, Monahan M, Weckesser A, Roberts T, Denny E, Ocansey L, Stubbs C, Cox E, Jones G, Clark TJ, Saridogan E, Gupta JK, Critchley HO, Horne A, Middleton LJ. Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-77. [PMID: 39259620 PMCID: PMC11417646 DOI: 10.3310/sqwy6998] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option. Objectives To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals. Participants Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Results Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman. Limitations Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment. Conclusions At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women. Future work Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin G Cooper
- Department of Gynaecology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Jane P Daniels
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Versha Cheed
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Gennard
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lisa Leighton
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Danielle Pirie
- Department of Gynaecology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Melyda Melyda
- Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mark Monahan
- Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Annalise Weckesser
- Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tracy Roberts
- Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Elaine Denny
- Faculty of Health, Education and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Ocansey
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Clive Stubbs
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Georgina Jones
- School of Humanities and Social Science, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
| | - T Justin Clark
- Department of Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ertan Saridogan
- Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London Women's Health Division, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Janesh K Gupta
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Biology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Andrew Horne
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Lee J Middleton
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cooper KG, Bhattacharya S, Daniels JP, Horne AW, Clark TJ, Saridogan E, Cheed V, Pirie D, Melyda M, Monahan M, Roberts TE, Cox E, Stubbs C, Middleton LJ. Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain: the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2024; 385:e079006. [PMID: 38749550 PMCID: PMC11094611 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-079006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/09/2024] [Indexed: 05/19/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of long acting progestogens compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain. DESIGN The PRE-EMPT (preventing recurrence of endometriosis) pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING 34 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS 405 women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a secure internet facility to a long acting progestogen (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system) or the combined oral contraceptive pill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was pain measured three years after randomisation using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at six months, one, two, and three years) included the four core and six modular domains of the EHP-30, and treatment failure (further therapeutic surgery or second line medical treatment). RESULTS 405 women were randomised to receive a long acting progestogen (n=205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (n=200). At three years, there was no difference in pain scores between the groups (adjusted mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2, P=0.76), which had improved by around 40% in both groups compared with preoperative values (an average of 24 and 23 points for long acting progestogen and combined oral contraceptive pill groups, respectively). Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 also showed improvement at all time points compared with preoperative scores, without evidence of any differences between groups. Women randomised to a long acting progestogen underwent fewer surgical procedures or second line treatments compared with those randomised to the combined oral contraceptive pill group (73 v 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS Postoperative prescription of a long acting progestogen or the combined oral contraceptive pill results in similar levels of improvement in endometriosis related pain at three years, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement compared with preoperative levels. While women can be reassured that both options are effective, the reduced risk of repeat surgery for endometriosis and hysterectomy might make long acting reversible progestogens preferable for some. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN registry ISRCTN97865475.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jane P Daniels
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Andrew W Horne
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - T Justin Clark
- Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ertan Saridogan
- Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Versha Cheed
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Melyda Melyda
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mark Monahan
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tracy E Roberts
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Clive Stubbs
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lee J Middleton
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ferguson MC, McNicol E, Kleykamp BA, Sandoval K, Haroutounian S, Holzer KJ, Kerns RD, Veasley C, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Perspectives on Participation in Clinical Trials Among Individuals With Pain, Depression, and/or Anxiety: An ACTTION Scoping Review. THE JOURNAL OF PAIN 2023; 24:24-37. [PMID: 36152760 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 09/04/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
For individuals experiencing pain, the decision to engage in clinical trials may be influenced by a number of factors including current and past care, illness severity, physical functioning, financial stress, and caregiver support. Co-occurring depression and anxiety may add to these challenges. The aim of this scoping review was to describe perspectives about clinical trial participation, including recruitment and retention among individuals with pain and pain comorbidities, including depression and/or anxiety. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study features, sample demographics, perspectives, barriers and/or motivations were collected and described. A total of 35 assessments were included in this scoping review with 24 focused on individuals with pain (24/35, 68.6%), 9 on individuals with depression and/or anxiety (9/35, 25.7%), and 2 on individuals with pain and co-occurring depression/anxiety (2/35, 5.7%). Barriers among participants with pain and those with depression included: research team's communication of information, fear of interventional risks, distrust (only among respondents with pain), too many procedures, fear of inadequate treatment, disease-life stressors, and embarrassment with study procedures (more commonly reported in participants with depression). Facilitators in both groups included: altruism and supportive staff, better access to care, and the ability to have outcome feedback (more commonly among individuals with depression). Individuals with pain and depression experience challenges that affect trial recruitment and retention. Engaging individuals with pain within research planning may assist in addressing these barriers and the needs of individuals affected by pain and/or depression. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the need to address barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials, including the need for an assessment of perspectives from underserved or marginalized populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- McKenzie C Ferguson
- School of Pharmacy, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois.
| | - Ewan McNicol
- School of Pharmacy, MCPHS University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Bethea A Kleykamp
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Karin Sandoval
- School of Pharmacy, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois
| | - Simon Haroutounian
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Katherine J Holzer
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Robert D Kerns
- Departments of Psychiatry, Neurology and Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Christin Veasley
- Co-founder and Director, Chronic Pain Research Alliance, North Kingstown, Rhode Island
| | - Dennis C Turk
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Chan Sun M, Sunnoo K, Vencatachellum I. Learning to live with endometriosis: Findings from a phenomenological study among women in Mauritius, a state in the Indian Ocean. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AFRICA NURSING SCIENCES 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijans.2022.100473] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/14/2022] Open
|
6
|
Eaton JL. Round-the-clock or start-and-stop: Does the regimen matter when dydrogesterone is used to treat chronic pelvic pain due to endometriosis? Fertil Steril 2021; 116:1578-1579. [PMID: 34742563 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 10/16/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Eaton
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sukhikh GT, Adamyan LV, Dubrovina SO, Baranov II, Bezhenar VF, Kozachenko AV, Radzinsky VE, Orazov MR, Yarmolinskaya MI, Olofsson JI. Prolonged cyclical and continuous regimens of dydrogesterone are effective for reducing chronic pelvic pain in women with endometriosis: results of the ORCHIDEA study. Fertil Steril 2021; 116:1568-1577. [PMID: 34465452 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.1194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2021] [Revised: 07/14/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of two different treatment regimens of dydrogesterone in the management of endometriosis-related chronic pelvic pain. DESIGN Observational, prospective cohort study over six months. SETTING Twenty gynecology clinics in the Russian Federation. PATIENT(S) Three hundred fifty women from 18 to 45 years of age with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain with or without dysmenorrhea. INTERVENTION(S) Dydrogesterone 10 mg 2 or 3 times daily, either between the 5th and 25th days of the menstrual cycle (prolonged cyclical treatment regimen) or continuously (continuous treatment regimen). For all patients, the data cutoff was at six months of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Intensity of chronic pelvic pain on the 11-point numerical rating scale (after 6 months). RESULT(S) A marked reduction in chronic pelvic pain was observed with both the prolonged cyclical and continuous treatment regimens (mean ± standard deviation change from baseline -3.3 ± 2.2 and -3.0 ± 2.2, respectively), with no significant difference between the two groups. With both regimens, patients experienced significant improvements in the intensity of chronic pelvic pain, number of days in which analgesics were required, severity of dysmenorrhea, sexual well-being, and health-related quality-of-life parameters. A favorable safety profile of dydrogesterone was confirmed, and no serious adverse drug reactions were reported during the study. CONCLUSION(S) Prolonged cyclical and continuous treatment regimens of dydrogesterone therapy both demonstrated a pronounced and similar reduction in the severity of chronic pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea and led to marked improvements in all study parameters related to quality of life and sexual well-being. REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03690765.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gennady T Sukhikh
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Leila V Adamyan
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russian Federation; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Svetlana O Dubrovina
- Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Pediatrics, Rostov State Medical University, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation
| | - Igor I Baranov
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Vitaly F Bezhenar
- Department of Obstetrics and Neonatology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
| | - Andrey V Kozachenko
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Viktor E Radzinsky
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Institute of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Ministry of Education of Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Mekan R Orazov
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Institute of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Ministry of Education of Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Maria I Yarmolinskaya
- Department of Gynecology and Endocrinology, Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction named after D.O. Ott, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
| | - Jan I Olofsson
- Global Medical Affairs, Established Pharmaceuticals Division, Abbott Product Operations AG, Allschwil, Switzerland; Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Houghton C, Dowling M, Meskell P, Hunter A, Gardner H, Conway A, Treweek S, Sutcliffe K, Noyes J, Devane D, Nicholas JR, Biesty LM. Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 10:MR000045. [PMID: 33026107 PMCID: PMC8078544 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000045.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVES To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. MAIN RESULTS We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Houghton
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Maura Dowling
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Pauline Meskell
- Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Andrew Hunter
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Heidi Gardner
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Aislinn Conway
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Shaun Treweek
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Katy Sutcliffe
- Department of Social Science, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK
| | - Jane Noyes
- Centre for Health-Related Research, Fron Heulog, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Declan Devane
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Jane R Nicholas
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Linda M Biesty
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|