Dataset Information

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.

Results

Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.

Conclusions

This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

SUBMITTER: Bruhn H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8147098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomised placebo-controlled trials have shown that daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir-emtricitabine reduces the risk of HIV infection. However, this benefit could be counteracted by risk compensation in users of PrEP. We did the PROUD study to assess this effect.MethodsPROUD is an open-label randomised trial done at 13 sexual health clinics in England. We enrolled HIV-negative gay and other men who have sex with men who had had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (245 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg) either immediately or after a deferral period of 1 year. Randomisation was done via web-based access to a central computer-generated list with variable block sizes (stratified by clinical site). Follow-up was quarterly. The primary outcomes for the pilot phase were time to accrue 500 participants and retention; secondary outcomes included incident HIV infection during the deferral period, safety, adherence, and risk compensation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN94465371) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02065986).FindingsWe enrolled 544 participants (275 in the immediate group, 269 in the deferred group) between Nov 29, 2012, and April 30, 2014. Based on early evidence of effectiveness, the trial steering committee recommended on Oct 13, 2014, that all deferred participants be offered PrEP. Follow-up for HIV incidence was complete for 243 (94%) of 259 patient-years in the immediate group versus 222 (90%) of 245 patient-years in the deferred group. Three HIV infections occurred in the immediate group (1·2/100 person-years) versus 20 in the deferred group (9·0/100 person-years) despite 174 prescriptions of post-exposure prophylaxis in the deferred group (relative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64-96, p=0·0001; absolute difference 7·8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4·3-11·3). 13 men (90% CI 9-23) in a similar population would need access to 1 year of PrEP to avert one HIV infection. We recorded no serious adverse drug reactions; 28 adverse events, most commonly nausea, headache, and arthralgia, resulted in interruption of PrEp. We detected no difference in the occurrence of sexually transmitted infections, including rectal gonorrhoea and chlamydia, between groups, despite a suggestion of risk compensation among some PrEP recipients.InterpretationIn this high incidence population, daily tenofovir-emtricitabine conferred even higher protection against HIV than in placebo-controlled trials, refuting concerns that effectiveness would be less in a real-world setting. There was no evidence of an increase in other sexually transmitted infections. Our findings strongly support the addition of PrEP to the standard of prevention for men who have sex with men at risk of HIV infection.FundingMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Public Health England, and Gilead Sciences.

Project description:Obesity and hypertension and their associated health complications disproportionately affect communities of color and people of lower socioeconomic status. Recruitment and retention of these populations in research trials, and retention in weight loss trials has been an ongoing challenge.Be Fit, Be Well was a pragmatic randomized weight loss and hypertension management trial of patients attending one of three community health centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were asked to complete follow-up assessments every 6-months for two years. We describe challenges encountered and strategies implemented to recruit and retain trial participants over the 24-month intervention. We also identify baseline participant characteristics associated with retention status. Retention strategies included financial incentives, contact between assessment visits, building relationships with health center primary care providers (PCPs) and staff, and putting participant convenience first.Active refusal rates were low with 130 of 2,631 patients refusing participation (4.9%). Of 474 eligible persons completing telephone screening, 365 (77.0%) completed their baseline visit and were randomized into the study. The study population was predominantly non-Hispanic Black (71.2%), female (68.5%) and reported annual household income of less than $35,000 (70.1%). Recruitment strategies included use of passive approval of potential participants by PCPs, use of part-time staff, and outsourcing calls to a call center. A total of 314 (86.0%) people completed the 24-month visit. Retention levels varied across study visits and intervention condition. Most participants completed three or more visits (69.6%), with 205 (56.2%) completing all four. At 24-months, lower retention was observed for males and the intervention condition. Retention strategies included building strong relationships with clinic staff, flexibility in overcoming participant barriers through use of taxi vouchers, night and weekend appointments, and keeping participants engaged via newsletters and social gatherings.We were able to retain 86.0% of participants at 24-months. Recruitment and retention of high percentages of racial/ethnic minorities and lower income samples is possible with planning, coordination with a trusted community setting and staff (e.g. community health centers and RAs), adaptability and building strong relationships.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00661817.

Project description:ObjectiveIncreasing numbers of young people attending university has raised concerns about the capacity of student mental health services to support them. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to explore whether provision of an 8 week mindfulness course adapted for university students (Mindfulness Skills for Students-MSS), compared with university mental health support as usual (SAU), reduced psychological distress during the examination period. Here, we conduct an economic evaluation of MSS+SAU compared with SAU.Design and settingEconomic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic, parallel, single-blinded RCT comparing provision of MSS+SAU to SAU.Participants616 university students randomised.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the university counselling service. Costs relate to staff time required to deliver counselling service offerings. QALYs were derived from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Dimension 6 Dimension (CORE-6D) preference based tool, which uses responses to six items of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM; primary clinical outcome measure). Primary follow-up duration was 5 and 7 months for the two recruitment cohorts.ResultsIt was estimated to cost £1584 (2022 prices) to deliver an MSS course to 30 students, £52.82 per student. Both costs (adjusted mean difference: £48, 95% CI £40-£56) and QALYs (adjusted mean difference: 0.014, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.021) were significantly higher in the MSS arm compared with SAU. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £3355, with a very high (99.99%) probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY.ConclusionsMSS leads to significantly improved outcomes at a moderate additional cost. The ICER of £3355 per QALY suggests that MSS is cost-effective when compared with the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds of £20 000 per QALY.Trial registration numberAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001160527.

Project description:Background and objectiveNearly all patients with multiple myeloma undergo multiple rounds of therapy. The phase III BOSTON trial of once-weekly selinexor and once-weekly bortezomib with dexamethasone (XVd) vs twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) is the basis for this cost-effectiveness analysis in previously treated multiple myeloma from a US commercial payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.MethodsA partitioned survival model enabled use of direct overall survival and progression-free survival curves from BOSTON to generate four health states for XVd and Vd: progression-free survival on treatment, progression-free survival off treatment, post-progression, and mortality. Using a 1-week cycle length, benefits and costs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Additional comparators were included in an exploratory analysis that compared XVd against seven additional regimens (six triplets, one doublet).ResultsAfter considering costs, utility, progression, and survival, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of XVd vs Vd was $475,430/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The 50% cost-effectiveness probability midpoint was near $470,000/QALY, based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The robustness of the analysis was supported by additional scenario assessment and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, which generally demonstrated little variance, with greatest sensitivity to variations in discount rates and utility values. In an exploratory analysis against external comparators, XVd showed a higher QALY gain with a lower cost (i.e., dominance) compared with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (PVd), and carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (KPd).ConclusionsAddition of XVd to the previously treated multiple myeloma treatment landscape provides a novel oral treatment option, which, when compared to Vd in the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $475,430/QALY. Exploratory analyses comparing against external comparators suggest that XVd was dominant vs Rd, PVd, and KPd.