Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions

Dissemination innovation: Using found poetry to return study results to patients and partners facing cancer

Objective

Investigators should return study results to patients and families facing cancer to honor their research contributions. We created a found poem from transcripts of sexual and gender minority (SGM) couples facing cancer and returned it to study participants.

Methods

Participants were randomized to receive the found poem in text, text and audio, audio, or video format, completed dissemination preferences and emotion questionnaires, and open-ended questions about their experience receiving the poem.

Results

Participants preferred the format they received (n = 15, 75.0%), with text-only and combined text and audio formats evoking the greatest number of emotions (n = 13 each). The following categories and subcategories were identified: dyadic experiences (support, strength, depth, durability); dissemination preferences (timing, method); emotion (positive, negative); utility of the found poem (affirming; fostering reflection; not useful or inaccurate, and sense of community). SGM participants utilized positive emotion, affirming, and a sense of community with greater frequency than non-SGM participants.

Conclusion

Innovative approaches to dissemination are acceptable; providing choices in how and when participants receive results may increase engagement; and SGM versus non-SGM groups may describe dyadic experiences differently.

Innovation

Returning study results via found poetry is an innovative way to honor research participants facing cancer.

COVID-19 clinical trials: who is likely to participate and why?

Aim: To identify factors associated with willingness to participate in a COVID-19 clinical trial and reasons for and against participating. Materials & methods: We surveyed Massachusetts (MA, USA) residents online using the Dynata survey platform and via phone using random digit dialing between October and November 2021. Respondents were asked to imagine they were hospitalized with COVID-19 and invited to participate in a treatment trial. We assessed willingness to participate by asking, "Which way are you leaning" and why. We used multivariate logistic regression to model factors associated with leaning toward participation. Open-ended responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: Of 1071 respondents, 65.6% leaned toward participating. Multivariable analyses revealed college-education (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.27), trust in the healthcare system (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.58) and relying on doctors (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.17) and family or friends (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.54) to make health decisions were significantly associated with leaning toward participating. Respondents with lower health literacy (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.91) and who identify as Black (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.68), Hispanic (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.98), or republican (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.97) were significantly less likely to lean toward participating. Common reasons for participating included helping others, benefitting oneself and deeming the study low risk. Common reasons for leaning against were deeming the study high risk, disliking experimental treatments and not wanting to be a guinea pig. Conclusion: Our finding that vulnerable individuals and those with lower levels of trust in the healthcare system are less likely to be receptive to participating in a COVID-19 clinical trial highlights that work is needed to achieve a healthcare system that provides confidence to historically disadvantaged groups that their participation in research will benefit their community.

Engagement with health research summaries via digital communication to All of Us participants

OBJECTIVE

Summaries of health research can be a complementary way to return value to participants. We assess how research participants engage with summaries via email communication and how this can be improved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We look at correlations between demographic subgroups and engagement in a longitudinal dataset of 305 626 participants (77% are classified as underrepresented in biomedical research) from the All of Us Research Program. We compare this against engagement with other program communications and use impact evaluations (N = 421 510) to measure the effect of tailoring communication by (1) eliciting content preferences, (2) Spanish focused content, (3) informational videos, and (4) article content in the email subject line.

RESULTS

Between March 2020 and October 2021, research summaries reached 67% of enrolled participants, outperforming other program communication (60%) and return of results (31%), which have a high uptake rate but have been extended to a subset of eligible participants. While all demographic subgroups engage with research summaries, participants with higher income, educational attainment, White, and older than 45 years open and click content most often. Surfacing article content in the email subject line and Spanish focused content had negative effects on engagement. Video and social media content and eliciting preferences led to a small directional increase in clicks.

DISCUSSION

Further individualization of tailoring efforts may be needed to drive larger engagement effects (eg, delivering multiple articles in line with stated preferences, expanding preference options). Our findings are likely a conservative representation of engagement effects, given the coarseness of our click rate measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Health research summaries show promise as a way to return value to research participants, especially if individual-level results cannot be returned. Personalization of communication requires testing to determine whether efforts are having the expected effect.

Pet owner perspectives, motivators and concerns about veterinary biobanking

Introduction

Veterinary biobanks store samples for future use and distribute samples to academic researchers and industry entities; however, informed consent provided by owners for pets contributing to biobanks can be complicated by limited understanding of goals, purpose, and logistics of biobanking.

Methods

This survey-based study aimed to gather feedback from pet owners on how they viewed allowing their pet to contribute to a veterinary biobank, with the goal of identifying opportunities to improve education, awareness of veterinary biobanking initiatives, and the consent processes. An electronic survey was distributed to a listserv of 2,119 pet owners and responses were received from 118 respondents (5.6%).

Results

Most respondents (67%) were not familiar with the concept of veterinary biobanking prior to having responded to the survey. Most (89%) were willing to allow their healthy pet to contribute samples to a veterinary biobanking program. Ninety-five percent would allow their sick pet to contribute. Most were neutral about financial incentives as a motivator to participate, although 40% indicated that if their pet's condition resulted in a decision to humanely euthanize, they would be more likely to contribute to the biobank if the veterinary biobanking program covered the cost of euthanasia. Common concerns included security/confidentiality (36%), that results would not be shared with them (33%) or that samples would be used for other purposes beyond those advertised (22%).

Discussion

These results suggest veterinary biobanking initiatives are well received by owners and most are willing to allow their pets to participate. Respondent concerns represent opportunities for veterinary biobanks to improve messaging and dissemination of results from work they support.

The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how to disseminate the results of randomised controlled trials effectively to health professionals and policymakers to improve treatment, care or prevention through changing policy and practice. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of different methods of dissemination of clinical research results to professional audiences.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Our search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as 'outreach interventions'; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Outreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364.

Health Research with Data in a Time of Privacy: Which Information do Patients Want?

When hospitals ask broad consent for the secondary use of patient data for scientific research, it is unknown for which studies the data will be used. We investigated what patients at a cancer hospital consider to be an adequate level and most suitable method of information provision using questionnaires (n = 71) and interviews (n = 24). A part of the respondents indicated that they would feel sufficiently informed by either being notified about potential further use, or by receiving a general brochure before being asked for consent. Others stated that additional information would be interesting and appreciated. Yet, when discussing required resources needed to provide additional information, interviewees lowered the bar of what they considered minimally required, voicing the importance of spending resources on research.

Return of Participants' Incidental Genetic Research Findings: Experience from a Case-Control Study of Asthma in an American Indian Community

The proper communication of clinically actionable findings to participants of genetic research entails important ethical considerations, but has been challenging for a variety of reasons. We document an instance of the return of individual genetic results in the context of a very rural American Indian community, in hopes of providing insight to other investigators about potentially superior or inferior courses of action. This was a case/control study of asthma among 324 pediatric participants. Subsequently, microarray genotype data became available, providing over 2 million variants, incidentally including some conferring risk for conditions for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends return of results. The study investigators engaged in extensive consultation with the IRB, the tribal government, and local clinicians to better inform our approach. We were able to notify the two participants heterozygous for the one clinically actionable variant identified. One participant welcomed this information and proceeded to obtain further clinical work-up; the other participant declined further follow-up. While demanding considerable time and effort, the return of clinically actionable genetic results is important from both an ethical perspective and to provide an improved trust relationship with the community of research participants.

Return of aggregate results to study participants: Facilitators, barriers, and recommendations

Background

Most researchers and study participants believe that the summary, or aggregate, results of health research should be returned to study participants. However, researchers often do not return aggregate results. A better understanding of the impediments to results return could support improvements in this practice.

Methods

This qualitative study convened eight virtual focus groups, four with investigators and four with patient partners from research studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). In total, 23 investigators and 20 partners participated. We explored perspectives, experiences, influences, and recommendations related to aggregate results return.

Results

Focus group participants described the ethical importance of returning aggregate results, as well as the benefits to study participants. They also noted important impediments to results return, emphasizing IRB and logistical challenges and describing a lack of support for the practice both on the part of institutions and the field at large. Participants highlighted the value of patients and caregivers' perspectives and contributions to results return, which focused on returning the most relevant findings through effective channels and formats. They further emphasized the importance of planning and identified resources that could support results return.

Conclusion

Researchers, funders, and the field can better facilitate results return by promoting standardized processes in research, such as the earmarking of funds for results return and inclusion of results returns milestones in research plans. More intentional policies, infrastructures, and resources that support results return may lead to more widespread return of study results to those who make these studies possible.

Engaging participants with research findings: A rights-informed approach

BACKGROUND

Sharing research findings with participants is recognized as an ethical imperative for the research community. However, most discourse on this topic in mainstream public health takes a paternalistic approach, with researchers retaining the power to choose if, when, and how research findings are shared.

METHODS

Fieldwork took place from August 2018 to January 2019 and again from August 2019 to December 2019 among two communities in the south Indian state of Kerala. We integrated participant engagement with study findings into the research protocol, using various collaborative strategies identified during the design stage, forming partnerships with participants and determining appropriate forms of dissemination for different participant groups during fieldwork.

RESULTS

Findings from previous research projects undertaken with these communities by other researchers had not been shared with them. This was interpreted by the communities as researchers not being interested in making a difference to their situation. In the current study, building reciprocal relationships that minimized power disparities, and providing outputs in tailored formats that promoted active engagement were key factors that enabled participants to engage with results. This engagement added value by enabling us to co-develop study recommendations. This process also enabled the community to have ownership of the results and use them to advocate for health system change to improve access to health care.

CONCLUSION

Research should be transformative for participating communities. Participants have a right to know the results of the research they participate in since their knowledge provides the research data which can in turn promote community change. Operationalising this requires researchers to build partnerships with participants and their communities from the outset. The role of participants must be reimagined, and adequate resources should be built into the research process. This is both socially responsible and ethical, but also improves the impact and legitimacy of research for the participants and the communities that they represent.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Participants of our research contributed to the design of various aspects of the engagement processes including the venue, the formats used for engagement, interpretation of the findings and recommendations from our research.

Return of Participants' Incidental Genetic Research Findings: Experience from a Case-Control Study of Asthma in an American Indian Community

PURPOSE

The proper communication of clinically actionable findings to participants of genetic research entails important ethical considerations, but has been challenging for a variety of reasons. We document an instance of return of individual genetic results in the context of a very rural American Indian community, in hopes of providing insight to other investigators about potentially superior or inferior courses of action.

METHODS

The original study was a case/control study of asthma among 324 pediatric participants. The study utilized a genotyping microarray assessing over 2 million variants, including one conferring risk for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends return of results to participants. The study investigators engaged in extensive consultation with the IRB, the Tribal government and local clinicians to better inform our approach.

RESULTS

With some difficulty we were able to notify the 2 participants heterozygous for this variant. One participant welcomed this information and proceeded to obtain further clinical work-up; the other participant declined further follow-up.

CONCLUSION

While demanding of considerable time and effort, the return of clinically actionable genetic results is important from both an ethical perspective and to provide an improved trust relationship with the community of research participants.

User-centered design of feedback regarding health-related behaviors derived from wearables: An approach targeting older adults and persons living with neurodegenerative disease

Objective

There has been tremendous growth in wearable technologies for health monitoring but limited efforts to optimize methods for sharing wearables-derived information with older adults and clinical cohorts. This study aimed to co-develop, design and evaluate a personalized approach for information-sharing regarding daily health-related behaviors captured with wearables.

Methods

A participatory research approach was adopted with: (a) iterative stakeholder, and evidence-led development of feedback reporting; and (b) evaluation in a sample of older adults (n  =  15) and persons living with neurodegenerative disease (NDD) (n  =  25). Stakeholders included persons with lived experience, healthcare providers, health charity representatives and individuals involved in aging/NDD research. Feedback report information was custom-derived from two limb-mounted inertial measurement units and a mobile electrocardiography device worn by participants for 7-10 days. Mixed methods were used to evaluate reporting 2 weeks following delivery. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics for the group and stratified by cohort and cognitive status.

Results

Participants (n  =  40) were 60% female (median 72 (60-87) years). A total of 82.5% found the report easy to read or understand, 80% reported the right amount of information was shared, 90% found the information helpful, 92% shared the information with a family member or friend and 57.5% made a behavior change. Differences emerged in sub-group comparisons. A range of participant profiles existed in terms of interest, uptake and utility.

Conclusions

The reporting approach was generally well-received with perceived value that translated into enhanced self-awareness and self-management of daily health-related behaviors. Future work should examine potential for scale, and the capacity for wearables-derived feedback to influence longer-term behavior change.

How do Hispanics/Latinos Perceive and Value the Return of Research Results?

Introduction: Interest in the return of research results has been increasing; however, little is known about how Hispanics/Latinos perceive and value receiving results. This study examined differences among Hispanics/Latinos by education and income in the experience and expectations about the return of research results, perceived value of specific types of information, and the least and most valuable specific information. Method: Retrospective observational design using a cross-sectional national survey sample of Hispanics/Latinos (n = 327). Results: Higher educational attainment was positively associated with the expectation to receive research results, likelihood to participate in research if given study findings, and likelihood to trust researchers if given results. Higher income was positively associated with the perceived value of getting results. Respondents with higher education specifically perceived greater value in information about how lifestyle and genetics affect their risk of disease, how genetics affect how they respond to medications, their ancestry, available clinical trials near them, and how to connect with other study participants. Respondents with higher income perceived greater value in information about how genetics affect their risk of disease and how they respond to medications. Conclusion: The findings offer important insights for planning research initiatives and for developing culturally targeted educational materials for Hispanics/Latinos.

Disclosing Individual Results in Dementia Research: A Proposed Study Participant’s Bill of Rights

This Study Participant’s Bill of Rights is a call to action for researchers in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) to proactively design clinical studies that provide the option for research participants to learn their individual research results if they choose, and in a manner that ensures study integrity. This Bill of Rights was crafted by a committee of study participants, care partners, representatives of dementia advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders in dementia research for the Advisory Group on Risk Education for Dementia (AGREEDementia). The framework developed by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials (MRCT) Return of Individual Research Results provides a useful context for researchers to plan their studies and disclosure.

Acceptability and feasibility of a multidomain harmonized data collection protocol in youth mental health

OBJECTIVE

To develop targeted treatment for young people experiencing mental illness, a better understanding of the biological, psychological, and social changes is required, particularly during the early stages of illness. To do this, large datasets need to be collected using standardized methods. A harmonized data collection protocol was tested in a youth mental health research setting to determine its acceptability and feasibility.

METHOD

Eighteen participants completed the harmonization protocol, including a clinical interview, self-report measures, neurocognitive measures, and mock assessments of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and blood. The feasibility of the protocol was assessed by recording recruitment rates, study withdrawals, missing data, and protocol deviations. Subjective responses from participant surveys and focus groups were used to examine the acceptability of the protocol.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight young people were approached, 18 consented, and four did not complete the study. Most participants reported positive subjective impressions of the protocol as a whole and showed interest in participating in the study again, if given the opportunity. Participants generally perceived the MRI and neurocognitive tasks as interesting and suggested that the assessment of clinical presentation could be shortened.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the harmonized data collection protocol appeared to be feasible and generally well-accepted by participants. With a majority of participants finding the assessment of clinical presentation too long and repetitive, the authors have made suggestions to shorten the self-reports. The broader implementation of this protocol could allow researchers to create large datasets and better understand how psychopathological and neurobiological changes occur in young people with mental ill-health.

Development of Written Materials for Participants in an Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Screening Trial

Given that participants' experiences in clinical trials include a variety of communication touchpoints with clinical trial staff, these communications should be designed in a way that enhances the participant experience by paying attention to the self-determination theoretical concepts of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In this feature, we argue that clinical trial teams need to consider the importance of how they design their written participant communication materials, and we explain in detail the process our multidisciplinary team took to design written materials for the patient and family caregiver participants in our Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) screening trial. This article concludes with suggested guidance and steps for other clinical trial teams.

Early-stage Alzheimer disease: getting trial-ready

Slowing the progression of Alzheimer disease (AD) might be the greatest unmet medical need of our time. Although one AD therapeutic has received a controversial accelerated approval from the FDA, more effective and accessible therapies are urgently needed. Consensus is growing that for meaningful disease modification in AD, therapeutic intervention must be initiated at very early (preclinical or prodromal) stages of the disease. Although the methods for such early-stage clinical trials have been developed, identification and recruitment of the required asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic study participants takes many years and requires substantial funds. As an example, in the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s Disease Trial (the first phase III trial to be performed in preclinical AD), 3.5 years and more than 5,900 screens were required to recruit and randomize 1,169 participants. A new clinical trials infrastructure is required to increase the efficiency of recruitment and accelerate therapeutic progress. Collaborations in North America, Europe and Asia are now addressing this need by establishing trial-ready cohorts of individuals with preclinical and prodromal AD. These collaborations are employing innovative methods to engage the target population, assess risk of brain amyloid accumulation, select participants for biomarker studies and determine eligibility for trials. In the future, these programmes could provide effective tools for pursuing the primary prevention of AD. Here, we review the lessons learned from the AD trial-ready cohorts that have been established to date, with the aim of informing ongoing and future efforts towards efficient, cost-effective trial recruitment.

Consensus is growing that intervention in the very early stages of Alzheimer disease is necessary for disease modification. Here, the authors discuss the challenges of recruiting asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic participants for clinical trials, focusing on ‘trial-ready’ cohorts as a potential solution.

Trial-ready cohorts are an effective strategy for the identification of participants eligible for clinical trials in early-stage Alzheimer disease (AD).

Building these cohorts requires considerable planning and technological infrastructure to facilitate recruitment, remote longitudinal assessment, data management and data storage.

Trial-ready cohorts exist for genetically determined populations at risk of AD, such as those with familial AD and Down syndrome; the longitudinal data from these cohorts is improving our understanding of the disease progression in early stages, informing clinical trial design and accelerating recruitment to intervention studies.

So far, the challenges experienced by trial-ready cohorts for early-stage AD have included difficulties recruiting an ethnically and racially representative cohort; and for online cohorts, difficulty retaining participants.

The results of ongoing work will reveal the success of strategies to improve cohort diversity and retention, and the rates of referral to clinical trials.

What, how, when and who of trial results summaries for trial participants: stakeholder-informed guidance from the RECAP project

OBJECTIVE

To generate stakeholder informed evidence to support recommendations for trialists to implement the dissemination of results summaries to participants.

DESIGN

A multiphase mixed-methods triangulation design involving Q-methodology, content analysis, focus groups and a coproduction workshop (the REporting Clinical trial results Appropriately to Participants project).

SETTING

Phase III effectiveness trials.

PARTICIPANTS

A range of participants were included from ongoing and recently completed trials, public contributors, trialists, sponsors, research funders, regulators, ethics committee members.

RESULTS

Fewer than half of the existing trial result summaries contained information on the clinical implications of the study results, an item deemed to be of high importance to participants in the Q-methodology study. Priority of inclusion of a thank you message varied depending on whether considering results for individuals or populations. The need for personally responsive modes of sharing trial result summaries was highlighted as important. Ideally, participants should be the first to know of the results with regard to the timing of sharing results summaries but given this can be challenging it is therefore important to manage expectations. In addition to patients, it was identified that it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders when developing trial results summaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Results summaries for trial participants should cover four core questions: (1) What question the trial set out to answer?; (2) What did the trial find?; (3) What effect have the trial results had and how will they change National Health Service/treatment?; and (4) How can I find out more? Trial teams should develop appropriately resourced plans and consult patient partners and trial participants on how 'best' to share key messages with regard to content, mode, and timing. The study findings provide trial teams with clear guidance on the core considerations of the 'what, how, when and who' with regard to sharing results summaries.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

Community Consensus Guidelines to Support FAIR Data Standards in Clinical Research Studies in Primary Mitochondrial Disease

Primary mitochondrial diseases (PMD) are genetic disorders with extensive clinical and molecular heterogeneity where therapeutic development efforts have faced multiple challenges. Clinical trial design, outcome measure selection, lack of reliable biomarkers, and deficiencies in long-term natural history data sets remain substantial challenges in the increasingly active PMD therapeutic development space. Developing "FAIR" (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data standards to make data sharable and building a more transparent community data sharing paradigm to access clinical research metadata are the first steps to address these challenges. This collaborative community effort describes the current landscape of PMD clinical research data resources available for sharing, obstacles, and opportunities, including ways to incentivize and encourage data sharing among diverse stakeholders. This work highlights the importance of, and challenges to, developing a unified system that enables clinical research structured data sharing and supports harmonized data deposition standards across clinical consortia and research groups. The goal of these efforts is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of drug development and improve understanding of the natural history of PMD. This initiative aims to maximize the benefit for PMD patients, research, industry, and other stakeholders while acknowledging challenges related to differing needs and international policies on data privacy, security, management, and oversight.

Technology to Support Collaborative Dissemination of Research with Alaska Native Communities

Marginalized communities often mistrust research due to a history of unethical practice and limited community engagement. Research community engagement is expected with Indigenous communities, but few empirical studies have explored engagement in results dissemination, let alone using technology. Studies on using technology to disseminate results focus on health and research professional audiences. This paper discusses Alaska Native stakeholder values on technology to facilitate collaborative results dissemination. In this formative study, six participants engaged in participatory design activities on collaborative results dissemination. Sketches and interviews were analyzed deductively using a value-based codebook. Study findings highlight the importance of community context and transparency. Contextual awareness includes understanding local culture and power dynamics, acknowledging the diversity of cultural practices within Alaska Native groups. Transparency is tied to clear communication: encouraging active dialogue and providing alternatives to communicate research. Technology that supports such collaborative dissemination could increase trust and improve adoption of research-recommended actions.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

Improving knowledge and trust in vaccines: A survey-based assessment of the potential of the European Union Clinical Trial Regulation No 536/2014 plain language summary to increase health literacy

The European Clinical Trial Regulation No 536/2014 is the first mandate for a non-technical, publicly disclosed, plain language summary (PLS) of clinical trial results. This easy-to-understand summary has the potential to inform the public about clinical trial results and thereby improve health literacy in vaccines. To investigate the utility of the PLS, we undertook 2 online surveys (July/October 2020) in the United Kingdom, the United States and India. Participants were selected by quota sampling to ensure representation of gender, age and parental status. Those lacking interest in vaccine clinical research were excluded. In survey 1, participants were questioned about their interest in and expectations of vaccine trial results. In survey 2, the perceptions of participants to a range of written communication styles used in publicly available PLSs were evaluated. A total of 66 (13%) and 122 (29%) individuals were excluded solely due to lack of interest in vaccine clinical research in surveys 1 and 2, respectively; 450 respondents (150/country) completed survey 1 and 300 (100/country) completed survey 2. In survey 1, there was a correlation (p < 0.01) between claimed knowledge of and trust in vaccines. Healthcare professionals were the most trusted source for vaccine information, while vaccine companies were ranked relatively low. In survey 2, infographic PLS formats were considered easiest to understand, most engaging and the strongest communicators. Emphasizing the main points of the infographics in the text did not improve comprehension or recall. Most respondents (86%) indicated that they would like to see this type of communication in the future. Overall, this research suggests that the PLS, by optimizing content and format, has a potential to increase health literacy, and thereby, as part of a wider integrated communication strategy, build vaccine knowledge and confidence.

Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials

Background

The increasing number of clinical research opportunities requires increasing numbers of participants in clinical trials. However, it may become increasingly problematic, as protocols have become increasingly complex. Better understanding of patients’ attitudes towards their potential participation in clinical trials is essential for developing effective clinical trial recruitment strategies. In Greece, limited research has been conducted on this topic so far. This study aims to contribute to filling this gap.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. The Greek version of a recently developed questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials, a 27-item scale distributed into four factors, was tested. In addition, participants were asked to provide information regarding their socio-demographics. A demographic comparison was conducted.

Results

The four-factor solution derived in our study consisted of the same 27 items and it was different from the six-factor solution that Arnetz et al. proposed. The factors risks and benefits, that consisted of 5 and 3 items respectively in the six-factor solution, were merged into one factor that consisted of 10 items in the four-factor solution. The four factors produced were Risks and benefits (ten items, α = 0,867), Patient’s expectations (six items, α = 0.864), Patient’s participation (five items, α = 0.827), and Cost and convenience (five items, α = 0,770). We found that demographic factors did not impact patients’ opinions about clinical trials participation, except for gender. The participants reported as important for participating in clinical trial: receiving clear and adequate information (95,5 %) and being given the opportunity to ask questions (97,8 %), take part in discussions regarding their own treatment (94,6 %), and voice their concerns and opinions (91,1 %). As factors strongly associated with participants’ willingness to participate in a clinical trial were reported: concerns about the risks of being in a clinical trial (87,5 %), the possible side effects of clinical trials (86,3 %), the type of treatment given in a clinical trial (83,7 %), and whether participation would improve their quality of life (QoL) (81,5 %).

Conclusions

The preliminary validation of the Greek version of the questionnaire measuring patient perceptions and expectations of participating in clinical trials demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and could be further tested in larger samples. The findings that emerged from this study are in line with previous literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07111-x.

Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research

A rapidly growing proportion of health research uses 'secondary data': data used for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected. Do researchers using secondary data have an obligation to disclose individual research findings to participants? While the importance of this question has been duly recognised in the context of primary research (ie, where data are collected from participants directly), it remains largely unexamined in the context of research using secondary data. In this paper, we critically examine the arguments for a moral obligation to disclose individual research findings in the context of primary research, to determine if they can be applied to secondary research. We conclude that they cannot. We then propose that the nature of the relationship between researchers and participants is what gives rise to particular moral obligations, including the obligation to disclose individual results. We argue that the relationship between researchers and participants in secondary research does not generate an obligation to disclose. However, we also argue that the biobanks or data archives which collect and provide access to secondary data may have such an obligation, depending on the nature of the relationship they establish with participants.

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial

BACKGROUND

Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

An online survey to assess parents' preferences for learning about child health research

Aim

Ethical and logistical issues often exacerbate recruitment problems in child health studies. This study aims: (a) to provide new knowledge on how parents want to hear about child health research and (b) to inform the KidsCAN PERC iPCT initiative's re‐examination of recruitment and retention strategies for pediatric emergency department research studies.

Design

We employed a cross‐sectional, survey design.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to participants (i.e., parents) through partner organizations' advisory group mailing lists. Frequencies and measures of central tendency guided data analysis.

Results

Parents are interested in hearing about child health research opportunities, particularly during general practitioner, pediatrician or walk‐in clinic visits. Most parents wanted updates on the research team, progress and results and support to participate, such as reimbursement of travel and childcare costs. Results can inform research teams in the planning of communications to effectively share research opportunities, progress and results with parents.

Ethics of returning children's individual research findings: from principles to practice

Little ethical recommendations on returning children's individual research findings are available for researchers in behavioral sciences, especially when compared to genetic research. Anecdotic evidence suggests that since parents are often interested in their child's individual research findings, researchers tend to offer this information as a form of compensation for research participation. Despite good intentions, these practices are not without potential harmful consequences for children. We were confronted with these difficulties and with the paucity of available guidance on this topic, being involved in a longitudinal, infant development study, i.e. tracking infants at risk for autism (TIARA). First, we review current ethical recommendations and discuss their limitations in the light of the TIARA study. Second, we will suggest to revise these recommendations, by identifying and applying the relevant bioethical principles and concepts at hand. Third, as an example of practical implementation, the adopted 'return of research findings'-policy for the TIARA-study is presented. The principles and concepts we engage with are the ancillary care responsibilities of the researcher, non-maleficence and beneficence, the right to an open future of the child, and the avoidance of therapeutic misconception. Ultimately, we present the concrete return of research findings policy implemented in the TIARA-study. Here, we suggest restricting the systematic return of children's individual research findings to cases where findings are considered clinically significant and actionable for the child. We discuss the broader implications for designing and conducting research in behavioral sciences with children.

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review

Background

There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.

Results

Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.

Conclusions

This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x.

Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018.

RESULTS

397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants.

CONCLUSION

Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.

Making the patient voice heard in a research consortium: experiences from an EU project (IMI-APPROACH)

APPROACH is an EU-wide research consortium with the goal to identify different subgroups of knee osteoarthritis to enable future differential diagnosis and treatment. During a 2-year clinical study images, biomarkers and clinical data are collected from people living with knee osteoarthritis and data are analyzed to confirm patterns that can indicate such different subgroups. A Patient Council (PC) has been set up at project initiation and consists of five people from Norway, The Netherlands and UK. Initially, this group of individuals had to learn how to effectively work with each other and with the researchers. Today, the PC is a strong team that is fully integrated in the consortium and acknowledged by researchers as an important sounding board. The article describes this journey looking at formal processes of involvement - organizational structure, budget, meetings - and more informal processes such as building relationships and changing researcher perceptions. It describes how the PC helped improve the experience and engagement of study participants by providing input to the clinical protocol and ensuring effective communication (e.g. through direct interactions with participants and newsletters). Furthermore, the PC is helping with dissemination of results and project advocacy, and overall provides the patient perspective to researchers. Additionally, the authors experienced and describe the intangible benefits such as a shift in researcher attitudes and a sense of community and purpose for PC members. Importantly, learnings reported in this article also include the challenges, such as effective integration of the PC with researchers' work in the early phase of the project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Library of Medicine, NCT03883568 , retrospectively registered 21 March 2019.

The effects of releasing early results from ongoing clinical trials

Most trials do not release interim summaries on efficacy and toxicity of the experimental treatments being tested, with this information only released to the public after the trial has ended. While early release of clinical trial data to physicians and patients can inform enrollment decision making, it may also affect key operating characteristics of the trial, statistical validity and trial duration. We investigate the public release of early efficacy and toxicity results, during ongoing clinical studies, to better inform patients about their enrollment options. We use simulation models of phase II glioblastoma (GBM) clinical trials in which early efficacy and toxicity estimates are periodically released accordingly to a pre-specified protocol. Patients can use the reported interim efficacy and toxicity information, with the support of physicians, to decide which trial to enroll in. We describe potential effects on various operating characteristics, including the study duration, selection bias and power.

Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to explore 1) the impact of returning unexpected pharmacogenomic (PGx) results to biobank contributors, and 2) participant views about improving communication.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative focus group study with biobank participants (N = 54) who were notified by mail of an individual research result indicating increased risk for adverse events associated with the common cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We employed a framework approach for analysis.

RESULTS

Our results revealed three themes illustrating participants' questions and uncertainty, especially regarding how to share results with health providers and family members, and remember them over time. Participants valued results for themselves and others, and for the future of medicine. Risk perception was framed by health identity. "Toxicity narratives," or familiarity with another's adverse reaction to chemotherapy, increased the sense of importance participants reported.

CONCLUSION

These focus group results highlight research participant remaining questions and high valuation of PGx results, even when unexpected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We identify PGx research participants' needs for clear clinical translation messaging that attends to health identity, pragmatics of sharing information with family members, and patient perceptions of barriers to transferring research results to a clinical context.

Building a Population Representative Pediatric Biobank: Lessons Learned From the Greater Cincinnati Childhood Cohort

Background: Biobanks can accelerate research by providing researchers with samples and data. However, hospital-based recruitment as a source for controls may create bias as who comes to the hospital may be different from the broader population. Methods: In an effort to broadly improve the quality of research studies and reduce costs and challenges associated with recruitment and sample collection, a group of diverse researchers at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center led an institution-supported initiative to create a population representative pediatric "Greater Cincinnati Childhood Cohort (GCC)." Participants completed a detailed survey, underwent a brief physician-led physical exam, and provided blood, urine, and hair samples. DNA underwent high-throughput genotyping. Results: In total, 1,020 children ages 3-18 years living in the 7 county Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan region were recruited. Racial composition of the cohort was 84% non-Hispanic white, 15% non-Hispanic black, and 2% other race or Hispanic. Participants exhibited marked demographic and disease burden differences by race. Overall, the cohort was broadly used resulting in publications, grants and patents; yet, it did not meet the needs of all potential researchers. Conclusions: Learning from both the strengths and weaknesses, we propose leveraging a community-based participatory research framework for future broad use biobanking efforts.

Plain Language Summaries of Clinical Trial Results: A Preliminary Study to Assess Availability of Easy-to-Understand Summaries and Approaches to Improving Public Engagement

BACKGROUND

Easy-to-understand, stand-alone factual summaries of clinical trial results have the potential to improve public understanding of and engagement with pharmaceutical research. The European Clinical Trial Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 is a major regulatory initiative that will result in a large number of such plain language summaries (PLSs) posted in the public domain. Today, however, little is known about the extent to which PLSs are written and are available to the general public.

OBJECTIVES

This preliminary study assessed (i) 20 top pharmaceutical companies' positions on improving transparency and commitment to disclosing trial result summaries in an easy-to-understand format and (ii) the availability of such summaries in the public domain and the ease of locating them via general web searches.

METHODS

The availability of PLSs in the public domain was estimated based on the number of EudraCT technical result summaries in four disease areas: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, meningitis, and influenza. The likelihood of PLSs being easy to find through internet search engine queries by members of the public was assessed using Google.

RESULTS

All 20 sponsors had committed to improve clinical trial transparency, 17 committed to sharing PLSs with trial participants, and 14 had at least one PLS available in the public domain. A total of 99 clinical studies in these four disease areas had technical summaries posted on EudraCT between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2020. Of these 99, 14 studies had PLSs in the public domain. A total of 12 of 14 PLSs were directly captured by search engine. However, the sponsor trial identifier or EudraCT number had to be included in the search term to locate them. Generic search terms resulted in large volumes of non-relevant results.

CONCLUSION

Despite the progressive movement towards clinical trial transparency, easily accessible PLSs on clinical trials are currently scarce. The provision of a European mandate and framework for non-technical result summaries by Regulation (EU) 536/2014 will be a major step to bring about positive change.

Feasibility of reporting results of large randomised controlled trials to participants: experience from the Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision (FOCUS) trial

OBJECTIVES

Informing research participants of the results of studies in which they took part is viewed as an ethical imperative. However, there is little guidance in the literature about how to do this. The Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision trial randomised 3127 patients with a recent acute stroke to 6 months of fluoxetine or placebo and was published in the Lancet on 5 December 2018. The trial team decided to inform the participants of the results at exactly the same time as the Lancet publication, and also whether they had been allocated fluoxetine or placebo. In this report, we describe how we informed participants of the results.

DESIGN

In the 6-month and 12-month follow-up questionnaires, we invited participants to provide an email address if they wished to be informed of the results of the trial. We re-opened our trial telephone helpline between 5 December 2018 and 31 March 2019.

SETTING

UK stroke services.

PARTICIPANTS

3127 participants were randomised. 2847 returned 6-month follow-up forms and 2703 returned 12-month follow-up forms; the remaining participants had died (380), withdrawn consent or did not respond.

RESULTS

Of those returning follow-up questionnaires, a total of 1845 email addresses were provided and a further 50 people requested results to be sent by post. Results were sent to all email and postal addresses provided; 309 emails were returned unrecognised. Seventeen people replied, of whom three called the helpline and the rest responded by email.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to disseminate results of large trials to research participants, though only around 60% of those randomised wanted to receive the results. The system we developed was efficient and required very little resource, and could be replicated by trialists in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN83290762; Post-results.

Patient and healthcare professional experiences of the Salford Lung Studies: qualitative insights for future effectiveness trials

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in the routine care setting provide the opportunity to better understand the effectiveness of new medicines but can present recruitment difficulties. An improved understanding of the challenges/opportunities for patient and healthcare professional (HCP) engagement in clinical research is needed to enhance participation and trial experience. In this study, we explored patient and HCP drivers for, and experiences of, participation in the Salford Lung Studies (SLS), and their views on future trial participation and the overall value of such trials.

Methods

This was a qualitative study set in Salford, UK, comprising patient telephone interviews (N = 10) and HCP advisory boards (one with general practitioners [GPs], one with practice managers [PMs]); all individuals had participated in the SLS. Semi-structured telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Advisory board meetings were analysed based on transcriptions of audio recordings and field notes.

Results

For patients, key positive aspects of the SLS were the ease/convenience of study assessments and excellent relationships with study nurses. GPs and PMs considered the SLS to be well-organized and highlighted the value of research nurse support; they also described minor challenges relating to trial systems, initial financial strain on practices and staff turnover. All participants indicated that they were very likely to participate in future trials, citing a design closely aligned with routine care practice as essential. Several strategies to encourage trial participation were suggested, such as clearly communicating benefits to patients and ensuring flexible study assessments.

Conclusions

Patients and HCPs had positive experiences of the SLS. The study design, closely aligned with routine care, was considered important to their high likelihood of participating in future trials. The experiences of patients and HCPs in the SLS provide valuable insights that will help inform future best practice in the design and conduct of future real-world effectiveness RCTs in primary care. The detailed first-hand experiences of HCPs will be of significant value to others considering engaging in clinical research and participating in effectiveness RCTs.

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail

PURPOSE

As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results.

METHODS

An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Layperson/Plain Language Summaries: Can Sponsors, CROs, and Sites Deliver in 2020?

The much-anticipated 2014 European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Regulation requiring Layperson/ Plain Language Summaries (PLS) is slated for implementation in 2020. At the 10th Annual CNS Summit Conference (Fall 2019), a panel discussion was convened with the objective of evaluating the likelihood of the PLS legislation being implemented successfully in the EU and voluntarily (e.g., pro-actively) in the rest of the world. Points of the discussion embraced the notion that this is an excellent opportunity for the entire pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, in the United States, public opinion of the pharmaceutical industry hit an all-time low in 2019, surpassing the oil industry with regard to public distrust. For decades, clinical trial participants have stated that wanting to learn, in layperson terms, the results of the study was second only to wanting to learn the treatment group into which they were assigned under double-blind conditions. Our conclusion is that while confidentiality, commercial interests, total costs, regulatory concerns, as well as some operational aspects (i.e., patient access portals) are among the hurdles, our commentary strongly advocates systematic implementation not only within the EU, but that this should be implemented globally, without further delay.

Study design factors influencing patients' willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomised vignette-based study

Background

High patient participation in clinical research reduces selection bias and ensures the generalizability of study findings. We explored study-related factors that may influence patients’ willingness to participate in research.

Methods

We submitted by mail two vignettes that described clinical research studies – a drug trial and a diagnostic study – to patients recently discharged from hospital and assessed their willingness to participate. We used a factorial design to randomly allocate three study attributes per vignette: in the drug trial, presumed superiority of new drug versus equipoise, public versus industry funding, and random versus non-random treatment allocation; in the diagnostic study, common versus rare disease, genetic versus protein analysis, and automatic reporting of results versus reporting on request.

Results

Of 2600 patients contacted, 1140 (44%) participated. Globally, willingness to participate in a drug trial was lower than in a diagnostic study (44.8% vs. 76.2%; P < 0.001). In the drug trial, participation was significantly higher when the new drug was presented as presumably better than the old (vs. equipoise) and when the study was funded by public sources (vs. industry), but was not affected by the allocation method. None of the factors tested in the diagnostic study was associated with participation.

Conclusions

Patients were more likely to participate in a hypothetical observational diagnostic study than in a hypothetical drug trial. Participation in the trial was lower when clinical equipoise was expressed and when the trial was funded by industry. These results suggest that some features of study design can influence participation.

First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants

Background: Health researchers and health research participants support the sharing of research results; however, results are typically only shared through peer-reviewed publications. Few studies have investigated researchers' ethical concerns related to sharing results with research participants. Methods: An explanatory approach was used to explore the ethical concerns researchers may have with returning aggregate results to research participants. Researchers (N = 414) responded to an online survey of open-ended questions that allowed researchers to provide in-depth explanations regarding their responses to closed-ended questions. Results: Across researchers, the mean percentage of studies for which ethical concerns were reported as a barrier to results sharing was 38.5% (SD= 30.7). Researchers' primary ethical concerns with returning results were articulated as an overarching desire to prevent harm to participants. Three broad ethical concerns emerged, each with underlying subthemes: 1) distress, 2) understanding, and 3) privacy. Conclusions: This is the first study to broadly explore researchers' ethical concerns with sharing aggregate research results with participants and reveals that researchers' ethical concerns are closely tied to the ethical obligation to do no harm. In order to increase results sharing, steps must be taken to help researchers understand how to minimize potential harm when sharing results.

"The results are encouragements to make positive changes to be healthier:" qualitative evaluation of Marshallese participants' perceptions when receiving study results in a randomized control trial

Background

Study participants express a desire to receive the results of studies in which they have participated even when the results are not what researchers expected. Sharing results with participants is a core principle of community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, many researchers using a community-based participatory approach report that they encounter barriers to sharing results with study participants. Researchers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences established a CBPR partnership with Marshallese community stakeholders in an effort to reduce the health disparities of this vulnerable population. Marshallese are a Pacific Islander population that faces significant health disparities and have a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, obesity-related cancers, and other chronic diseases compared to the general US population.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive design was used to evaluate Marshallese participants' perceptions related to receiving results of a culturally adapted Diabetes Self-Management Education randomized control trial in which they participated. Participants were provided with a summary of their individual results as well as preliminary, overall aggregate study results. Interviews were conducted with half of (N = 111) of the 221 enrolled participants that provided them with the opportunity to share in-depth responses related to their perceptions of the study results they received.

Results

There was no statistically significant differences between study arms in participant desire to receive overall study results, desire to receive personal study results, or willingness to participate in future research. Participants described their desire for results and the effect of these results on their future behavior. Within the a priori theme of participants' desire for results, three subthemes emerged: 1) results showed current health status, 2) results showed improvement, and 3) demonstrated the overall results of the study. Within the a priori theme of effects of results on future behavior, two sub-themes emerged: 1) encourage future healthy behavior, and 2) encourage future research participation.

Conclusions

Participants overwhelmingly stated they wanted to receive personal and aggregate study results. This finding is consistent with previous qualitative studies that documented that participants want results. Marshallese participants also reported that receiving study results would affect their future health behavior. This study documents specifically how participants anticipate using the results of studies in which they participated.

Clinical trials registration information

The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02407132).

Dissemination of trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic clinical trials: an audit of trial investigators intentions

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of Phase III clinical trials given a favourable opinion by a research ethics committee in the UK that provided trial results to those who participated.

DESIGN

Audit of records.

SETTING

Phase III clinical trials registered on the UK's research permissions system (Integrated Research Application System) between the 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of trial investigators that intended to provide results to trial participants compared against what trials reported to ethics committees at the end of study.

RESULTS

Out of 1404 Phase III trials, 87.7% (n=1231) trials stated they intended to disseminate results to participants while 12.3% (n=173) trials stated they would not. Out of these 1231 trials, 18.8% (n=231) trials intended to actively communicate trial results or a means of accessing results to their participants, a further 80.5% (n=991) reported passive intention to disseminate and for the remainder (n=9) the process was unclear. Of the 370 End of Study reports (30% of all included studies) that could be accessed 10 (2.7%) explicitly mentioned activities related to dissemination of findings to participants with the majority (74.9%) having no mention and a further 22.4% of reports not being accessible. Of the 10 which did report dissemination of results to participants the majority (n=6) were through a lay summary or letter.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported intention to disseminate results to trial participants among trial investigators is high, however, reporting of feedback methods is lacking. In addition, mechanisms to ensure intentions to disseminate trial results are translated into actual behaviour need to be put in place to ensure those who participate in trials have the opportunity to find out about the results.

Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants: Formative assessment of participant and researcher expectations and preferences

Introduction

Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their findings but lack knowledge about how to effectively communicate findings to a lay audience.

Methods

We designed a two-phase, mixed methods pilot study to understand experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of researchers and PSP in two age groups (adolescents/young adults (AYA) or older adults) and to test communication prototypes for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings.

Principal Results

PSP and researchers agreed that sharing study findings should happen and that doing so could improve participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build community support for research. Some differences and similarities in communication preferences and message format were identified between PSP groups, reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging. Researchers wanted specific training and/or time and resources to help them prepare messages in formats to meet PSP needs and preferences but were unaware of resources to help them do so.

Conclusions

Our findings offer insight into how to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of strategies to share research findings and highlight the need to develop services and support for researchers as they aim to bridge this translational barrier.