Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches.

METHODS

We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression.

RESULTS

We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results 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.

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.

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 familiarity with, understanding of, and preferences for clinical trial endpoints and terminology

BACKGROUND

Although there is increased attention to designing and explaining clinical trials in ways that are clinically meaningful for patients, there is limited information on patient preferences, understanding, and perceptions of this content.

METHODS

Maximum difference scaling (MaxDiff) methodology was used to develop a survey for assessing patients' understanding of 19 clinical terms and perceived importance of 9 endpoint surrogate phrases used in clinical trials and consent forms. The survey was administered electronically to individuals with metastatic breast cancer affiliated with the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. Analyses were performed using Bayesian P values with statistical software.

RESULTS

Among 503 respondents, 77% had a college degree, 70% were diagnosed with metastatic disease ≥2 years before survey completion, and 77% had received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Less than 35% of respondents reported understanding "fairly well" the terms symptomatic progression, duration of disease control, time to treatment cessation, and endpoints. Income level and time since onset of metastatic disease correlated with comprehension. Patients who had received ≥6 lines of therapy perceived that time until serious side effects (P < .001) and time on therapy (P < .001) were more important compared with those who had received only 1 line of therapy. Positively phrased parameters were associated with increased perceived importance.

CONCLUSIONS

Even among educated, heavily pretreated patients, many commonly used clinical research terms are poorly understood. Comprehension and the perceived importance of trial endpoints vary over the course of disease. These observations may inform the design, discussion, and reporting of clinical trials.

Giving Voice to Clinical Study Participants: Development and Deployment of Sequential Patient Experience Surveys for Global Clinical Studies

Background

Biopharmaceutical companies are piloting patient experience surveys (PES) to help enhance patient satisfaction with clinical studies. However, most PES have been conducted at study close-out, which can hinder recall and responsiveness, and at a limited number of sites, which restricts their applicability to global studies. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of developing sequential PES, which would be deployed globally, and to provide practical recommendations based on our real-world experience.

Methods

To develop sequential PES (introductory, interim, close-out), we customized a previously developed patient experience close-out survey. Extensive input was gained from multiple stakeholders (e.g., survey experts, patient advisors, psychometricians, clinical trialists, lawyers). To deploy the PES in global studies, we prepared PES-specific ethics committee submissions, training materials (e.g., slides, videos), and PES invitation aids (postcards, digital app reminders).

Results

Developing and deploying sequential PES in global clinical studies was feasible. The 3-part online PES (25 to 37 questions per survey) passed health literacy testing. To facilitate benchmarking, the PES included core questions (including a Net Promoter Score question). The PES gained ethics approval and was deployed globally in 2017–2018 in 12 phase 2 and 3 clinical studies in North America, Europe, and the Asia–Pacific. Based on the real-world insights gained and the challenges encountered, we have made recommendations for PES.

Conclusions

Our practical recommendations on the development and deployment of sequential global PES may assist others to implement PES efficiently and effectively, allowing them to gain feedback from patients globally during clinical studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s43441-020-00115-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing the adoption of clinical trial results summary disclosure to patients and the public

Introduction: There is a broad global acknowledgment that the timely and effective communication of clinical trial results is not only essential to the development, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions but also meets an ethical obligation to inform patients and the public. Areas covered: At this time, less than 2% of all clinical trials completed or terminated within the past three years returned plain language summaries to study volunteers. This estimate is far below our forecast made 10 years ago when we evaluated a pilot effort to demonstrate a feasible and efficient process for communicating summary results to patients. At that time, we anticipated that research sponsors would embrace the obligation and in so doing would improve their relationship with and trust among their study volunteers and patient communities. This article discusses why adoption remains low and suggests that the absence of clear regulatory requirements and their enforcement are the primary cause. Expert opinion: The authors anticipate that the regulatory environment will tighten and that public, patient and patient advocate appetite and expectation for the disclosure of clinical trial results summaries in plain language will intensify during the next 18 months. These pressures will compel research sponsors to accelerate adoption.

Returning aggregate results of clinical trials: Empirical data of patient preferences

Introduction

The purpose of this research was to understand the preferences of patients receiving integrative medicine services for return of aggregate study results.

Methods

A brief online survey (survey 1) was sent to 341 cancer patients receiving integrative medicine interventions; subsequently, a minimally revised survey (survey 2) was sent to 812 individuals with various medical conditions who had been either research participants in integrative medicine studies (n = 446) or patients (n = 346) of mind-body medicine.

Results

Feedback to a model plain language summary was elicited from survey 1 and survey 2 respondents. Seventy-seven survey recipients (23%) responded to survey 1, and 134 survey recipients (17%) responded to survey 2. The majority of respondents to the surveys were female and 51-70 years of age. Ninety percent of responders to survey 1 and 89% of responders to survey 2 indicated that researchers should share overall results of a study with participants. In terms of the means of result distribution, 37%-47% preferred email, while 22%-27% indicated that, as long as the results are shared, it did not matter how this occurred. Of 38 survey 1 respondents who had previously participated in a clinical trial, 37% had received the results of their study. In survey 2, 63 individuals indicated that they previously participated in clinical trials, but only 16% recalled receiving results.

Conclusions

These results confirm that the majority (89%-90%) of integrative medicine patients are interested in receiving the results of clinical trials. The majority (82%-94%) of respondents felt the model plain language summary of results provided was helpful.

Communicating with participants during the conduct of multi-center clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Communicating with trial participants is an important aspect of study conduct, relevant for informed consent and respect for participants. Group teleconferences are one means to convey information to trial participants. We used group teleconferences during an ongoing large-scale clinical trial to communicate important trial updates.

METHODS

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's Disease Longitudinal Study-1 trial studied creatine for treatment of early-stage Parkinson's disease. A total of 1741 participants enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Canada to take part in a double-blind randomized trial of 5 years of treatment with creatine versus placebo. The study leadership held two teleconferences with study participants and their caregivers after each of two pre-specified interim analyses, for a total of four teleconferences. Each agenda included a presentation by study leadership followed by an open question and answer period. Teleconference recordings were made available to all site personnel and trial participants. Recordings were reviewed and abstracted for themes and topics of the presentations, participant questions, and discussion. Number of participants, connection time for each participant, number of questions, and caller connection time were summarized using descriptive statistics. After the first teleconferences, participants who remained on the call until the end were invited to complete a voluntary, four-question survey about the teleconference process. During the second teleconferences, participants were notified of premature study closure.

RESULTS

There were 258 callers for the first pair of teleconferences and 604 callers for the second pair of teleconferences. Study leaders answered more than 110 questions from study participants and caregivers across all calls. The most frequently asked question themes related to study drug, Parkinson's disease, side effects, future research, and data analysis. The initial teleconferences were well received by participants. Based on responses to the post-call survey, 98% (118/121) of participants found the call useful, 91% (115/127) were interested in future similar calls, 88% stated the call made them more likely to continue in the study (112/128), and 85% (90/106) were satisfied overall with study communications.

CONCLUSION

Teleconferences provide a convenient way to communicate with trial participants and can be used during the conduct of clinical trials to convey study progress and other information. For multi-site trials, teleconferences enable participants to engage directly with study leadership and to ask questions. Survey respondents were highly satisfied with the group teleconference experience. Future research is needed to determine whether teleconferences improve participants' satisfaction with clinical trial participation and improve retention.