Dataset Information

Who is willing to participate in research? A screening model for an anxiety and depression trial in the epilepsy clinic.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Anxiety and depression in epilepsy are prevalent, associated with poor outcomes, underrecognized, undertreated, and thus a key area of need for treatment research. The objective of this study was to assess factors associated with research participation among epilepsy clinic patients who screened positive for anxiety or depression. This was accomplished by characterizing clinical and psychiatric factors among patients seen in an epilepsy clinic and evaluating which factors were associated with consent for potential research participation, via a combined clinical and research screening model.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial of anxiety and depression treatment in epilepsy, individuals with a positive screen for anxiety and/or depression at a routine epilepsy clinic visit were invited to opt-in (via brief electronic consent) to further eligibility assessment for a randomized treatment study. Information on psychiatric symptoms and treatment characteristics were collected for dual clinical care and research screening purposes. Cross-sectional association of demographic, clinical, and psychiatric factors with opting-in to research was analyzed by multiple logistic regression.

Results

Among N?=?199 unique adults with a first positive screen for anxiety and/or depression among 786 total screening events, 154 (77.4%) opted-in to further potential research assessment. Higher depression scores and current treatment with an antidepressant were independently associated with opting-in to research (depression odds ratio (OR)?=?1.13 per 1-point increase in Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy (NDDI-E) score, p?=?0.028, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.26; antidepressant OR?=?2.37, p?=?0.041, CI: 1.04-5.41). Nearly half of the 199 individuals (43.7%) with anxiety and/or depression symptoms were already being treated with an antidepressant, and 46.7% were receiving neither antidepressant therapy nor mental health specialty care. One-quarter (24.1%) reported a past psychiatric hospitalization, yet only half of these individuals were receiving mental health specialty care.

Significance

Our results demonstrate a high willingness to participate in research using a brief electronic consent approach at a routine clinic visit. Adults with persistent anxiety or depression symptoms despite antidepressant therapy and those with higher depression scores were more willing to consider a randomized treatment study. This has implications for future study design, as individuals already on treatment or those with more severe symptoms are often excluded from traditional research designs. We also found a high burden of psychiatric disease and high prevalence of persistent symptoms despite ongoing antidepressant treatment.

SUBMITTER: Munger Clary HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7282472 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Who is willing to participate in research? A screening model for an anxiety and depression trial in the epilepsy clinic.

Munger Clary Heidi M HM Croxton Rachel D RD Allan Jonathan J Lovato James J Brenes Gretchen G Snively Beverly M BM Wan Mingyu M Kimball James J Wong Matthew H MH O'Donovan Cormac A CA Conner Kelly K Jones Victor V Duncan Pamela P

Epilepsy & behavior : E&B 20200127 Pt A

<h4>Objective</h4>Anxiety and depression in epilepsy are prevalent, associated with poor outcomes, underrecognized, undertreated, and thus a key area of need for treatment research. The objective of this study was to assess factors associated with research participation among epilepsy clinic patients who screened positive for anxiety or depression. This was accomplished by characterizing clinical and psychiatric factors among patients seen in an epilepsy clinic and evaluating which factors were ...[more]

PMID: 32000099

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is widely claimed that racial and ethnic minorities, especially in the US, are less willing than non-minority individuals to participate in health research. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical data to substantiate this claim.Methods and findingsWe performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all published health research studies that report consent rates by race or ethnicity. We found 20 health research studies that reported consent rates by race or ethnicity. These 20 studies reported the enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals for a broad range of research, from interviews to drug treatment to surgical trials. Eighteen of the twenty studies were single-site studies conducted exclusively in the US or multi-site studies where the majority of sites (i.e., at least 2/3) were in the US. Of the remaining two studies, the Concorde study was conducted at 74 sites in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France, while the Delta study was conducted at 152 sites in Europe and 23 sites in Australia and New Zealand. For the three interview or non-intervention studies, African-Americans had a nonsignificantly lower overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (82.2% versus 83.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.02). For these same three studies, Hispanics had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (86.1% versus 83.5%; OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.94-1.98). For the ten clinical intervention studies, African-Americans' overall consent rate was nonsignificantly higher than that of non-Hispanic whites (45.3% versus 41.8%; OR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.78-1.45). For these same ten studies, Hispanics had a statistically significant higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (55.9% versus 41.8%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.65). For the seven surgery trials, which report all minority groups together, minorities as a group had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (65.8% versus 47.8%; OR = 1.26; 95% CI 0.89-1.77). Given the preponderance of US sites, the vast majority of these individuals from minority groups were African-Americans or Hispanics from the US.ConclusionsWe found very small differences in the willingness of minorities, most of whom were African-Americans and Hispanics in the US, to participate in health research compared to non-Hispanic whites. These findings, based on the research enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals, the vast majority from the US, suggest that racial and ethnic minorities in the US are as willing as non-Hispanic whites to participate in health research. Hence, efforts to increase minority participation in health research should focus on ensuring access to health research for all groups, rather than changing minority attitudes.

Project description:ObjectiveAnxiety and depression symptoms in epilepsy are common, impactful and under-recognized and undertreated. While prior survey data suggests equipoise among epileptologists for managing anxiety and/or depression via prescribing in the epilepsy clinic versus psychiatry referral, patient preferences are unknown and should potentially influence practice habits among epileptologists. Thus, the primary objective of this study was to determine patient preference for anxiety and/or depression prescribing by neurologists versus psychiatry referral among an adult epilepsy clinic sample of symptomatic patients.MethodsManagement preferences for anxiety and/or depression were surveyed in an adult tertiary care epilepsy clinic. Individuals who screened positive for anxiety and/or depression symptoms on validated instruments during a routine care-embedded learning health system study were recruited. Demographics, social variables, psychiatric treatment history, and treatment priorities and preferences were surveyed. Preference was defined as a slightly greater than 2:1 ratio in favor neurology prescribing or psychiatry referral. The study was powered to assess this primary objective using a two-sample binomial test. Multinomial logistic regression examined an a priori multivariable model of treatment preference (secondary objective).ResultsThe study sample included N = 63 symptomatic adults, with 64% women and mean age 42.2 years. Most reported past or current treatment for anxiety and/or depression, and treatment for these symptoms was a high or moderate priority among 65.1% of the sample. Neurologist prescribing was preferred in 83.0% (nearly 5:1) over psychiatry referral among those who chose neurology or psychiatry (as opposed to neither of the two; p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.702-0.919). Overall, 69.8% of the total study sample preferred neurology prescribing. Multivariable modeling indicated preference for neither management option (compared with neurologist prescribing) was associated with low overall treatment prioritization and having never received neurologist medication management. None of the factors examined in the a priori multivariable model were associated with selecting psychiatry referral (compared to neurologist prescribing).ConclusionIn this sample, most patients indicated a preference for neurologists to prescribe for anxiety or depression symptoms in the epilepsy clinic. Care models involving neurologist prescribing for anxiety and depression symptoms merit further investigation and potential adoption in clinical practice.

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.

Dataset Information

Who is willing to participate in research? A screening model for an anxiety and depression trial in the epilepsy clinic.

Objective

Methods

Results

Significance

Publications

Who is willing to participate in research? A screening model for an anxiety and depression trial in the epilepsy clinic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets