Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials

Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?

Clinicians have good moral and professional reasons to contribute to pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs). We argue that clinicians have a defeasible duty to participate in this research that takes place in usual care settings and does not involve substantive deviation from their ordinary care practices. However, a variety of countervailing reasons may excuse clinicians from this duty in particular cases. Yet because there is a moral default in favor of participating, clinicians who wish to opt out of this research must justify their refusal. Reasons to refuse include that the trial is badly designed in some way, that the trial activities will violate the clinician's conscience, or that the trial will impose excessive burdens on the clinician.

Identification and management of pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings: A current understanding and directions for future research

While the embedded nature of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can improve the efficiency and relevance of research for multiple stakeholders, embedding research into ongoing clinical care can also involve ethical and regulatory challenges. An emergent challenge is the management of pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings (PCT-CFs). While PCT-CFs share some features with incidental or secondary findings that are encountered in conventional clinical trials and clinical care, the PCT context differs in ethically relevant ways that complicate PCT-CF identification and management. We report on the results of a two-year multi-method investigation of PCT-CFs. Overall, five core themes emerged: 1) the liminal nature of PCTs and the implications of this for PCT-CFs; 2) the context-specific nature of PCT-CF management; 3) the centrality of institutions; 4) the importance of prospective planning; and 5) patient expectations. Among the central lessons of this work are that prior ethics guidance from other settings cannot easily be adapted to address PCT-CFs, nor can a single approach readily accommodate all PCT-CFs. Moving forward, stakeholders, including researchers, institutions, ethics oversight bodies, and funders, should anticipate and plan for PCT-CFs in the design, conduct, and analysis of PCTs. Future scholarship is needed to examine experiences with PCT-CFs, and the practical and conceptual issues they raise for the future conduct of PCTs.

Patient Partner Perspectives Regarding Ethically and Clinically Important Aspects of Trial Design in Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials for Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are trials in which intact groups such as hemodialysis centers or shifts are randomized to treatment or control arms. Pragmatic CRTs have been promoted as a promising trial design for nephrology research yet may also pose ethical challenges. While randomization occurs at the cluster level, the intervention and data collection may vary in a CRT, challenging the identification of research participants. Moreover, when a waiver of patient consent is granted by a research ethics committee, there is an open question as to whether and to what degree patients should be notified about ongoing research or be provided with a debrief regarding the nature and results of the trial upon completion. While empirical and conceptual research exploring ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs has begun to emerge, there has been limited discussion with patients, families, or caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE

To explore with patients and families with experience of hemodialysis research the challenges raised by different approaches to designing pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Specifically, their perceptions of (1) the use of a waiver of consent, (2) notification processes and information provided to participants, and (3) any other concerns about cluster randomized designs in hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Focus group and interview discussions of hypothetical clinical trial designs.

SETTING

Focus groups and interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconference or telephone.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient partners in hemodialysis research, defined as patients with personal experience of dialysis or a family member who had experience supporting a patient receiving hemodialysis, who have been actively involved in discussions to advise a research team on the design, conduct, or implementation of a hemodialysis trial.

METHODS

Participants were invited to participate in focus groups or individual discussions that were audio recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Two focus groups, three individual interviews, and one interview involving a patient and family member were conducted with 17 individuals between February 2019 and May 2020. Participants expressed support for approaches that emphasized patient choice. Disclosure of patient-relevant risks and information were key themes. Both consent and notification processes served to generate trust, but bypassing patient choice was perceived as undermining this trust. Participants did not dismiss the option of a waiver of consent. They were, however, more restrictive in their views about when a waiver of consent may be acceptable. Patient partners were skeptical of claims to impracticability based on costs or the time commitments for staff.

LIMITATIONS

All participants were from Canada and had been involved in the design or conduct of a trial, limiting the degree to which results may be extrapolated.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the preferences of participants to be afforded the opportunity to decide about trial participation, we argue that investigators should thoroughly investigate approaches that allow participants to make an informed choice regarding trial participation. In keeping with the preference for autonomous choice, there remains a need to further explore how consent approaches can be designed to facilitate clinical trial conduct while meeting their ethical requirements. Finally, further work is needed to define the limited circumstances in which waivers of consent are appropriate.

Researcher practitioner engagement in health research: The development of a new concept

The engagement of frontline practitioners in the production of research-derived knowledge is often advocated. Doing so can address perceived gaps between what is known from research and what happens in clinical practice. Engagement practices span a continuum, from co-production approaches underpinned by principles of equality and power sharing to those which can minimalize practitioners' contributions to the knowledge production process. We observed a conceptual gap in published healthcare literature that labels or defines practitioners' meaningful contribution to the research process. We, therefore, aimed to develop the concept of "Researcher Practitioner Engagement" in the context of academically initiated healthcare research in the professions of nursing, midwifery, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech and language therapy. Guided by Schwartz-Barcott et al.'s hybrid model of concept development, published examples were analyzed to establish the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of this type of engagement. Academic researchers (n = 17) and frontline practitioners (n = 8) with relevant experience took part in online focus groups to confirm, eliminate, or elaborate on these proposed concept components. Combined analysis of theoretical and focus group data showed that the essence of this form of engagement is that practitioners' clinical knowledge is valued from a study's formative stages. The practitioner's clinical perspectives inform problem-solving and decision-making in study activities and enhance the professional and practice relevance of a study. The conceptual model produced from the study findings forms a basis to guide engagement practices, future concept testing, and empirical evaluation of engagement practices.

Patients' Views About the Disclosure of Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.

DESIGN

Prospective, qualitative focus group study.

PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.

APPROACH

All groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.

KEY RESULTS

Reactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct of Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials in Hemodialysis Care: An Interview Study With Key Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic cluster randomized trials (CRTs) offer an opportunity to improve health care by answering important questions about the comparative effectiveness of treatments using a trial design that can be embedded in routine care. There is a lack of empirical research that addresses ethical issues generated by pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify stakeholder perceptions of ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs conducted in hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

In-person or telephone interviews with an international group of stakeholders.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders (clinical investigators, methodologists, ethicists and research ethics committee members, and other knowledge users) who had been involved in the design or conduct of a pragmatic individual patient or cluster randomized trial in hemodialysis, or their role would require them to review and evaluate pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted in-person or over the telephone and were audio-recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Sixteen interviews were conducted with 19 individuals. Interviewees were largely drawn from North America (84%) and were predominantly clinical investigators (42%). Six themes were identified in which pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis raise ethical issues: (1) patients treated with hemodialysis as a vulnerable population, (2) appropriate approaches to informed consent, (3) research burdens, (4) roles and responsibilities of gatekeepers, (5) inequities in access to research, and (6) advocacy for patient-centered research and outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were largely from North America and did not include research staff, who may have differing perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The six themes reflect concerns relating to individual rights, but also the need to consider population-level issues. To date, concerns regarding inequity of access to research and the need for patient-centered research have received less coverage than other, well-known, issues such as consent. Pragmatic CRTs offer a potential approach to address equity concerns and we suggest future ethical analyses and guidance for pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis embed equity considerations within them. We further note the potential for the co-creation of health data infrastructure with patients which would aid care but also facilitate patient-centered research. These present results will inform planned future guidance in relation to the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration is not applicable as this is a qualitative study.

The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders

Background

There is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized.

Results

We conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes “usual care” and implications for trial reporting.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

The TiME Trial: A Fully Embedded, Cluster-Randomized, Pragmatic Trial of Hemodialysis Session Duration

BACKGROUND

Data from clinical trials to inform practice in maintenance hemodialysis are limited. Incorporating randomized trials into dialysis clinical care delivery should help generate practice-guiding evidence, but the feasibility of this approach has not been established.

METHODS

To develop approaches for embedding trials into routine delivery of maintenance hemodialysis, we performed a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial demonstration project, the Time to Reduce Mortality in ESRD (TiME) trial, evaluating effects of session duration on mortality (primary outcome) and hospitalization rate. Dialysis facilities randomized to the intervention adopted a default session duration ≥4.25 hours (255 minutes) for incident patients; those randomized to usual care had no trial-driven approach to session duration. Implementation was highly centralized, with no on-site research personnel and complete reliance on clinically acquired data. We used multiple strategies to engage facility personnel and participating patients.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 7035 incident patients from 266 dialysis units. We discontinued the trial at a median follow-up of 1.1 years because of an inadequate between-group difference in session duration. For the primary analysis population (participants with estimated body water ≤42.5 L), mean session duration was 216 minutes for the intervention group and 207 minutes for the usual care group. We found no reduction in mortality or hospitalization rate for the intervention versus usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a highly pragmatic design allowed efficient enrollment, data acquisition, and monitoring, intervention uptake was insufficient to determine whether longer hemodialysis sessions improve outcomes. More effective strategies for engaging clinical personnel and patients are likely required to evaluate clinical trial interventions that are fully embedded in care delivery.

Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: study protocol

Background

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) trial designs exist on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, depending on the degree to which a study aims to address a question of efficacy or effectiveness. As conceptualized by Schwartz and Lellouch in 1967, an explanatory approach to trial design emphasizes hypothesis testing about the mechanisms of action of treatments under ideal conditions (efficacy), whereas a pragmatic approach emphasizes testing effectiveness of two or more available treatments in real-world conditions. Interest in, and the number of, pragmatic trials has grown substantially in recent years, with increased recognition by funders and stakeholders worldwide of the need for credible evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This increase has been accompanied by the onset of learning healthcare systems, as well as an increasing focus on patient-oriented research. However, pragmatic trials have ethical challenges that have not yet been identified or adequately characterized. The present study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders with respect to ethical issues raised by the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. It is embedded within a large, four-year project that seeks to develop guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. As a first step, this study will address important gaps in the current empirical literature with respect to identifying a comprehensive range of ethical issues arising from the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. By opening up a broad range of topics for consideration within our parallel ethical analysis, we will extend the current debate, which has largely emphasized issues of consent, to the range of ethical considerations that may flow from specific design choices.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. trialists, methodologists, lay members of study teams, bioethicists, and research ethics committee members), across multiple jurisdictions, identified based on their known experience and/or expertise with pragmatic trials.

Discussion

We expect that the study outputs will be of interest to a wide range of knowledge users including trialists, ethicists, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, healthcare policymakers, research funders and patient groups. All publications will adhere to the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0332-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Stakeholder perspectives regarding alternate approaches to informed consent for comparative effectiveness research

INTRODUCTION

Traditional informed consent approaches, involving separate discussions and lengthy consent forms, may be an imperfect fit for comparative effectiveness research (CER) that is integrated into usual care and compares non-investigational treatments. However, systematic efforts to collect broad stakeholder perspectives about alternative streamlined approaches to disclosure and consent in this context have been limited.

METHODS

We used a deliberative engagement method to solicit the views of a multi-stakeholder group regarding 3 alternative models of disclosure, consent, and authorization in CER studies: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and "General Approval". Participants considered the acceptability of these 3 models for observational and randomized CER studies of hypertension medications and for alternative treatments for spinal stenosis, all conducted in the context of a learning health care system.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight stakeholders participated in the all-day deliberative engagement session. Following deliberation, a majority of stakeholders (67%) liked the General Approval model for the observational hypertension study, more than the number who reported liking Opt-Out or Opt-In (45% and 36%, respectively). Support was lower for General Approval model in the context of a randomized hypertension study, with 80% liking a traditional Opt-In approach, compared with 54% liking Opt-Out, and 11% liking General Approval. Similarly, for the spinal stenosis CER studies, while most stakeholders preferred a streamlined Opt-Out approach for the observational design, most preferred a traditional Opt-In approach for the randomized version.

CONCLUSIONS

This multi-stakeholder group was more favorable towards streamlined models for disclosure and authorization for observational CER than randomized designs. These findings are consistent with arguments that informed consent requirements should be tailored to the context of the research design, rather than a standard "one size fits all" approach.

Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory

BACKGROUND

The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped.

METHODS

To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design.

RESULTS

In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs.

CONCLUSION

A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.