Dataset Information

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally. DESIGN:Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS:Trial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expertise. Researchers differed by geographical location, educational background, and experience with different types of funders. Interviewees were identified by searches on Web of Science and snowball sampling. 52 trial researchers were approached by email; 20 agreed to be interviewed. SETTING:Interviews conducted by telephone, recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported to NVivo 12, and analysed by systematic text condensation. Semistructured interviews focused on financial and non-financial conflicts of interest. RESULTS:The interviewees had participated in a median of 37.5 trials and were mainly male physicians who had experience with commercial and non-commercial trial funders. Two predefined themes (influence of conflicts of interest and management strategies) and two additional themes (definition and reporting of conflicts of interest) emerged. Examples of perceived influence of conflicts of interest were: choice of inferior comparator, manipulation of the randomisation process, prematurely stopping the trials, fabrication of data, blocking access to data, and spin (eg, overly favourable interpretation of the results). Examples of strategies to manage conflicts of interest were: disclosure procedures, exclusion of the funder from design and analysis, independent committees, contracts ensuring complete access to the data, and no restriction by the funder on analysis and reporting. Interviewees used different definitions or thresholds for what they considered to be conflicts of interest, and they described different criteria for when to report them. Some interviewees considered non-commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding of trials by governmental health agencies with a political agenda) to be equally or more important than commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding by drug and device companies), but more challenging to report and manage. CONCLUSION:This study described how trial researchers perceive conflicts of interest unduly influencing clinical trials they had worked on, and the management strategies they used to prevent these influences. The results indicated considerable variability in researchers' understanding of what conflicts of interest are and when they should be reported.

SUBMITTER: Ostengaard L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7590918 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study.

Østengaard Lasse L Lundh Andreas A Tjørnhøj-Thomsen Tine T Abdi Suhayb S Gelle Mustafe H A MHA Stewart Lesley A LA Boutron Isabelle I Hróbjartsson Asbjørn A

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20201027

<h4>Objective</h4>To characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative interview study.<h4>Participants</h4>Trial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expe ...[more]

PMID: 33109515

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patient blood management (PBM) interventions.DesignWe performed a secondary analysis of a recently published meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating five common PBM interventions in patients undergoing major surgery.Data sourcesThe databases searched by the original systematic reviews were searched using subject headings and Medical Subject Headings terms according to search strategies from the final search time-points until 1 June 2019.Eligibility criteriaRCTs on PBM irrespective of blinding, language, date of publication and sample size were included. Abstracts and unpublished trials were excluded. Conflicts of interest were defined as sponsorship, funding or authorship by industry, professional PBM advocacy groups or blood services.Data extraction and synthesisThree independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Pooled treatment effect estimates were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or standardised mean difference with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic.ResultsThree hundred and eighty-nine RCTs totalling 53 635 participants were included. Thirty-two trials (8%) were considered free from important sources of bias. There was reporting bias favouring PBM interventions on transfusion across all analyses. In trials with no declared author conflicts of interest, the treatment effect on mortality was RR 1.12 (0.86 to 1.45). In trials where author conflicts of interest were declared, the treatment effect on mortality was RR 0.84 (0.69 to 1.03), with significant reporting bias favouring PBM interventions. Trials with declared conflicts linked to professional PBM advocacy groups (five studies, n=977 patients) reported statistically significant reductions in mortality RR 0.40 (0.17 to 0.92), unlike other groups.ConclusionsLow certainty of the evidence that guides PBM implementation is confounded by evidence of reporting bias, and the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest, favouring PBM on important trial outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundExternal randomised pilot trials help researchers decide whether, and how, to do a future definitive randomised trial. The progression criteria are often prespecified to inform the interpretation of pilot trial findings and subsequent progression decision-making. We aimed to explore and understand the perspectives and experiences of key stakeholders when making progression decisions following external pilot trials.MethodsThirty-five remote semi-structured interviews with external randomised pilot trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, statisticians and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives. Questions focussed on experiences and perceptions of pilot trial progression decisions and whether and how progression criteria informed this decision. Data were analysed using the framework method approach to thematic analysis. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and rigour were used.ResultsInterviews were conducted between December 2020 and July 2021. Six descriptive themes were developed to capture the experiences and perspectives of participants. These were (1) divided opinions on the value and development of progression criteria, (2) (avoiding) the potential for personal interest to influence progression criteria and progression decision-making, (3) stakeholder engagement in setting progression criteria and making progression decisions, (4) lessons learned from doing the pilot trial and their impact on progression criteria applicability, (5) other factors that inform the progression decision and (6) progression of external randomised pilot trials-funding considerations and constraints. These themes were underpinned by an overarching interpretative theme 'a one-size approach to progression does not fit all' to describe the highly nuanced and complex decision-making process that occurs following external randomised pilot trials. The progression criteria are rarely the only consideration informing the decision to progress to future research; unanticipated events, signals of efficacy and continuity of the research team are other factors that researchers consider.ConclusionsOne size does not fit all when it comes to the progression criteria and pilot trial progression. The progression criteria are only one of many considerations researchers have when deciding whether a pilot trial is feasible. External pilot trial progression is not guaranteed even when a pilot trial is considered feasible (based on the progression criteria and/or other considerations), indicating inefficiency and potential research waste.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/5N2KZ.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes.MethodsWe purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed.ResultsWe interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs.ConclusionSuccessfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.

Project description:BackgroundPeer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers' and applicants' perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications.Methodology and principal findingsWe designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists.ConclusionsOur study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable.

Dataset Information

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study.

Publications

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets