Addressing the gap for racially diverse research involvement: The King's Model for minority ethnic research participant recruitment

Objectives

Ethnic minorities (EM) are still underrepresented in research recruitment. Despite wide literature outlining the barriers, enablers and recommendations for driving inclusion and diversity in research, there is still little evidence for successful diversity in research participation, which has a direct impact on the quality of care provided to ethnically diverse individuals. A new, comprehensive approach to recruitment strategies is therefore necessary.

Study design

service improvement initiative.

Methods

In the light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the key public health need to address the disparity in care provided to non-white populations, we used a novel, comprehensive approach (The King's Model) comprising of local and community actions to promote inclusive research recruitment. We then compared rates of diverse recruitment in studies where the novel approach, was applied to studies which had been closed to recruitment at the time of analysis and where ethnicity data was available.

Results

Our results demonstrate that following the introduction of the King's Model for diverse recruitment, commercial interventional study diverse recruitment increased from 6.4% to 16.1%, and for non-commercial studies, from 30.2% to 41.0% and 59.2% in the selected studies.

Conclusions

King's Model is potentially a useful tool in enhancing non-Caucasian recruitment to clinical research. Enriched by additional recommendations based on our experiences during the Covid-19 research recruitment drive, we propose the King's Model is used to support ethnically diverse research recruitment. Further evidence is needed to replicate our findings, although this preliminary evidence provides granular details necessary to address the key unmet need of validating clinical research outcomes in non-white populations.

What influenced people with chronic or refractory breathlessness and advanced disease to take part and remain in a drug trial? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and retention in clinical trials remains an important challenge, particularly in the context of advanced disease. It is important to understand what affects retention to improve trial quality, minimise attrition and reduce missing data. We conducted a qualitative study embedded within a randomised feasibility trial and explored what influenced people to take part and remain in the trial.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study embedded within a double-blind randomised trial (BETTER-B[Feasibility]: BETter TreatmEnts for Refractory Breathlessness) designed using a person-centred approach. Participants with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), or chronic heart failure (CHF), with a modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale grade of 3/4 were recruited from three UK sites. A convenience subsample completed qualitative interviews after the trial. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results were considered in relation to the core elements of person-centred care and our model of the person-centred trial.

RESULTS

In the feasibility trial 409 people were screened for eligibility, and 64 were randomised. No participant was lost to follow-up. Twenty-two participants took part in a qualitative interview. Eleven had a diagnosis of COPD, 8 ILD, 2 CHF and 1 lung cancer. The participants' median age was 71 years (range 56-84). Sixteen were male. Twenty had completed the trial, and two withdrew due to adverse effects. The relationship between patient and professional, potential for benefit, trial processes and the intervention all influenced the decision to participate in the trial. The relationship with the research team and continuity, perceived benefit, and aspects relating to trial processes and the intervention influenced the decision to remain in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

In this feasibility trial recruitment targets were met, attrition levels were low, and aspects of the person-centred approach were viewed positively by trial participants. Prioritisation of the relationship between the patient and professional; person-centred processes, including home visits, assistance with questionnaires, and involvement of the carer; and enabling people to participate by having processes in line with individual capabilities appear to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials in advanced disease. We recommend the integration of a person-centred approach in all clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN32236160. Registered on 13 June 2016.

Mirtazapine for chronic breathlessness? A review of mechanistic insights and therapeutic potential

INTRODUCTION

Chronic breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom of advanced disease with few effective treatments. Central nervous system mechanisms are important in respiratory sensation and control. Consequently, drugs which may modify processing and perception of afferent information in the brain may have a role. Antidepressants have been proposed; however, current evidence is limited. Of potentially suitable antidepressants, mirtazapine is an attractive option given its tolerability profile, low cost, and wide availability, along with additional potential benefits. Areas covered: The paper provides an overview of the physiology of breathlessness, with an emphasis on central mechanisms, particularly the role of fear circuits and the associated neurotransmitters. It provides a potential rationale for how mirtazapine may improve chronic breathlessness and quality of life in patients with advanced disease. The evidence was identified by a literature search performed in PubMed through to October 2018. Expert opinion: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of antidepressants for chronic breathlessness in advanced disease. Mirtazapine is a promising candidate to pursue, with definitive randomized controlled trials required to determine its efficacy and safety in this setting.

Implementation of the Needs Assessment Tool for patients with interstitial lung disease (NAT:ILD): facilitators and barriers

A Needs Assessment Tool (NAT) was developed previously to help clinicians identify the supportive/palliative needs of people with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (NAT:ILD). This letter presents barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation. Data from (1) a focus group of respiratory clinicians and (2) an expert consensus group (respiratory and palliative clinicians, academics, patients, carers) were analysed using Framework Analysis. Barriers related to resources and service reconfiguration, and facilitators to clinical need, structure, objectiveness, flexibility and benefits of an ‘aide-memoire’. Identified training needs included communication skills and local service knowledge. The NAT:ILD was seen as useful, necessary and practical in everyday practice.