Predictors of patient's intentions to participate in pragmatic clinical trials: An initial exploration.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gibson B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5757933 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Predictors of patient's intentions to participate in pragmatic clinical trials: An initial exploration.
Gibson Bryan B Butler Jorie M JM Lewis Lacey L Weir Charlene C
SSM - population health 20160306
The Veterans Health Administration is implementing a pragmatic trial research program, called Point of Care Research (POC-R). The purpose of this telephone survey in which respondents were randomized to different framing conditions of the purpose of POC-R was to determine the impact of differing frames of the purpose of POC-R on attitudes towards the program and intentions to participate; and the relative importance of different beliefs and attitudes in discriminating low vs. high intenders to p ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeGeneral notification offers a possible alternative to written informed consent for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs). It involves patients being informed through brochures, posters, and letters that research is being conducted simultaneously to providing clinical care and that patients will be enrolled in pRCTs without study-specific consent. A previous survey found that a substantial minority of respondents endorsed general notification. We aimed to know who is willing to enroll in this type of trials using general notification rather than written consent.MethodsThe previous study was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two scenarios were assessed: two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar benefit/risk ratio and the other taking the same drug in the morning or at night. Each scenario had two routes: written consent vs verbal consent and written consent vs general notification. In this study, we were interested in the latter route in both scenarios. Respondents' preferences were measured based on their recommendation to the research ethics committee and the respondent's personal preference. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of those supporting general notification in either outcome or the variables explaining consistency and inconsistency between their personal preference and their recommendation. Based on the results of the original survey, we aimed to have at least 200 inconsistent respondents; to this end, the sample size was increased accordingly in a second wave of the survey.ResultsOne thousand six hundre and ten respondents were included; 1003 from the original survey and 607 new ones belonging to the second wave. Thirty-nine percent of respondents chose general notification as personal preference and/or recommendation. Respondents with lower education levels were more prone to accept general notification than those holding a university degree [OR (95% CI)], primary school [2.959 (2.069-4.232)], secondary school [2.899 (2.09-4.021)], or high school [1.620 (1.184-2.217)]. Also unemployed [1.372 (1.064-1.770)] and retired [1.445 (1.049-1.990)], but not students, showed preference for general notification in comparison with those employed. Individuals more than 24 years old and having received high school or university (or postgraduate) education were statistically significantly more consistent in their decisions.ConclusionsThirty-nine percent of respondents is open to not to be asked for their informed consent in low-risk pRCTs; of these, those being less educated and not having current job or being retired are significantly more open to general notification. The use of this alternative method to written consent for simultaneous conduct of pRCTs and care should be considered and educational programs settled up to, in the case of public acceptance, ensure its ethical appropriateness.
| S-EPMC5684310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignAudit of records.SettingPhase 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 measuresProportion of trial investigators that intended to provide results to trial participants compared against what trials reported to ethics committees at the end of study.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionsReported 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.
| S-EPMC7045144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimPracticing physicians inevitably become involved in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), including comparative effectiveness research. We sought to identify physicians' perspectives related to PCTs.MethodsIn-depth semistructured interviews with 20 physicians in the USA.ResultsAlthough physicians are generally willing to participate in PCTs, their support is predicated on several factors including expected benefits, minimization of time and workflow burdens and physician engagement. Physicians communicated a desire to respect patients' rights and interests while maintaining a high level of care.ConclusionFuture work is needed to systematically assess the impact of PCTs on clinicians in meeting their ethical obligations to patients and the burdens clinicians are willing to accept in exchange for potential benefits.
| S-EPMC4975022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPragmatic trials that combine electronic health record data and patient-reported data may be subject to selection bias due to the differential post-randomization exclusion of participants who are randomized in error. Such situations are often caused by inevitable reasons, such as incomplete patient medical records at the pre-randomization stage. This can lead to participants in the intervention arm being identified as ineligible after randomization, while randomized-in-error participants in the usual care are often not discernable. The differential exclusion can present analytic challenges and threaten result validity.MethodsUnder the potential outcomes framework, we developed a Bayesian model that jointly identifies the randomized-in-error status and estimates the average treatment effect among participants not randomized in error. We designed simulation studies with hypothesized proportions of 5 %-15 % randomization in error to evaluate the performance of our model across scenarios where the outcomes of participants randomized in error were either measured or unmeasured. Comparisons were made to intention-to-treat and covariate-adjusted estimators.ResultsSimulation results show satisfactory performance of our proposed models, where the estimated average treatment effects among participants not randomized in error have low bias (<1 %) and close to 95 % coverage. Estimates from the alternative approaches can exhibit notable biases and low coverage.ConclusionsDifferential exclusion in pragmatic clinical trials after randomization can lead to selection bias. Under certain assumptions, Bayesian methods provide a feasible solution to jointly identify randomized-in-error status and estimate the average treatment effect among participants not randomized in error, ensuring more reliable and valid inferences about intervention effects.
| S-EPMC11752791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are unique opportunities related to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health insurance plans, which have longitudinal data on member/patient demographics, dates of coverage, and reimbursed medical care, including prescription drug dispensings, vaccine administrations, behavioral healthcare encounters, and some laboratory results. Such trials can be large and efficient, using these data to identify trial-eligible patients and to ascertain outcomes.MethodsWe use our experience primarily with the National Institutes of Health Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Distributed Research Network, which comprises health plans that participate in the US Food & Drug Administration's Sentinel System, to describe lessons learned from the conduct and planning of embedded pragmatic trials.ResultsInformation is available for research on more than 75 million people with commercial or Medicare Advantage health plans. We describe three studies that have used or plan to use the Network, as well as a single health plan study, from which we glean our lessons learned.ConclusionsStudies that are conducted in health plans provide much-needed evidence to drive clinically meaningful changes in care. However, there are many unique aspects of these trials that must be considered in the planning, implementation, and analytic phases. The type of trial best suited for studies embedded in health plans will be those that require large sample sizes, simple interventions that could be disseminated through health plans, and where data available to the health plan can be leveraged. These trials hold potential for substantial long-term impact on our ability to generate evidence to improve care and population health.
| S-EPMC10363182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDog ownership is popular, with research suggesting improvements in physical and psychological health of dog owners. However, majority of these studies were not investigator-controlled. Ethical and practical implications arising from the intervention exposure (dog ownership) result in recruitment difficulties. A fit-for-purpose design, such as delaying dog adoption until after data collection, could alleviate such issues. The purpose of this study was to explore intentions and possible incentives for participation in investigator-controlled trials examining the effects of dog ownership on human physical and psychological health.ResultsFemale (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31-2.04) and older (OR 65+ years 1.49, 95% CI 1.06-2.10) participants were more likely to be interested in taking part in a study investigating the health benefits of dog ownership. Majority reported no incentive was necessary for participation (57%), while others preferred pet food supplies (37%), or vouchers for veterinary care (32%). Over half of participants (53%) were willing postpone adoption for up to 3 months to participate in an investigator-controlled trial. The results of the study, showing majority of participants interested in participating in future studies examining the health benefits of dog ownership and without incentives, provides insight to methodical directions for future studies.
| S-EPMC5848557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA better understanding of motivations to participate as well as recommendations to reduce barriers to enrollment may assist in design of future clinical trials.MethodsWe developed a 32-item electronic questionnaire to explore motivations, experiences, and recommendations of inflammatory bowel disease patients, who had participated in pharmaceutical clinical trials in a tertiary center in Canada over the last decade. We employed a mixed-methods approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative research methods.ResultsWe distributed a total of 69 e-mails with surveys and received 46 responses (66.6% response rate). Study participants were mostly male (27/46, 58.7%), non-Hispanic White (43/46, 93.5%), with a mean age of 45.5 years (SD 10.9). Most decided to participate in a clinical trial to benefit future patients (29/46, 63.0%). Half of the participants (23/46, 50.0%) reported they were worried about the possibility of receiving placebo, although the majority (29/46, 63.0%) understood they could improve on placebo. The most challenging aspect reported was the number and length of questionnaires (15/46, 32.6%), as well as the number of colonoscopies (14/46, 30.4%). Strategies recommended to increase enrollment were reduction of the chance of receiving placebo (20/46, 43.5%), facilitating inclusion of patients who have failed multiple therapies (20/46, 43.5%), allowing virtual visits (18/46, 39.1%), including subtypes of disease traditionally excluded from trials (16/46, 34.8%) and improving outreach to underrepresented populations (13/46, 28.3%). The vast majority (37/46, 80.4%) reported their experience of participation to be better than expected.ConclusionsThese results should help inform the design of future clinical trials with a focus on patient-centricity.
| S-EPMC11003535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized controlled trials in CKD lag in number behind those of other chronic diseases, despite the high morbidity and mortality experienced by patients with kidney disease and the exorbitant costs of their health care. Observational studies of CKD frequently yield seemingly paradoxic associations of traditional risk factors with outcomes, making it difficult to extrapolate the results of trials conducted in people with normal kidney function to patients with CKD. However, many completed trials in CKD have been limited by intermediate outcomes of unclear clinical significance or narrow eligibility criteria that limit external validity, and implementation of proven therapies remains a challenge. It is therefore imperative that the nephrology community capitalize on recent interest in novel approaches to trial design, such as pragmatic clinical trials. These trials are meant to promote research within real world settings to yield clinically relevant results with greater applicability than those of traditional trials, while maintaining many advantages, such as controlling for potential sources of bias. We provide a description of pragmatic clinical trials and a discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and practical challenges inherent to this study design, in the context of specific scientific questions relevant to patients with CKD.
| S-EPMC5042675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical treatment trials are increasingly being designed in primary mitochondrial disease (PMD), a phenotypically and genetically heterogeneous collection of inherited multi- system energy deficiency disorders that lack effective therapy. We sought to identify motivating factors and barriers to clinical trial participation in PMD. METHODS:A survey study was conducted in two independent mitochondrial disease subject cohorts. A discovery cohort invited subjects with well-defined biochemical or molecularly- confirmed PMD followed at a single medical center (CHOP, n = 30/67 (45%) respondents). A replication cohort included self-identified PMD subjects in the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) national contact registry (n = 290/1119 (26%) respondents). Five-point Likert scale responses were analyzed using descriptive and quantitative statistics. Experienced and prioritized symptoms for trial participation, and patient attitudes toward detailed aspects of clinical trial drug features and study design. RESULTS:PMD subjects experienced an average of 16 symptoms. Muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, and exercise intolerance were the lead symptoms encouraging trial participation. Motivating trial design factors included a self-administered study drug; vitamin, antioxidant, natural or plant-derivative; pills; daily treatment; guaranteed treatment access during and after study; short travel distances; and late-stage (phase 3) participation. Relative trial participation barriers included a new study drug; discontinuation of current medications; disease progression; daily phlebotomy; and requiring participant payment. Treatment trial type or design preferences were not influenced by population age (pediatric versus adult), prior research trial experience, or disease severity. CONCLUSIONS:These data are the first to convey clear PMD subject preferences and priorities to enable improved clinical treatment trial design that cuts across the complex diversity of disease. Partnering with rare disease patient communities is essential to effectively design robust clinical trials that engage patients and enable meaningful evaluation of emerging treatment interventions.
| S-EPMC5957366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While conducting a set of large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials involving high-impact public health issues such as end-stage renal disease, opioid use, and colorectal cancer, there were substantial changes to both policies and guidelines relevant to the trials. These external changes gave rise to unexpected challenges for the trials, including decisions regarding how to respond to new clinical practice guidelines, increased difficulty in implementing trial interventions, achieving separation between treatment groups, and differential responses across sites. In this article, we describe these challenges and the approaches used to address them. When deliberating appropriate action in the face of external changes during a pragmatic clinical trial, we recommend considering the well-being of the participants, clinical equipoise, and the strength and quality of the evidence associated with the change; involving those charged with data and safety monitoring; and where possible, planning for potential external changes as the trial is being designed. Any solution must balance the primary obligation to protect the well-being of participants with the secondary obligation to protect the integrity of the trial in order to gain meaningful answers to important public health questions.
| S-EPMC6663617 | biostudies-literature