Dataset Information

Patient Partner Perspectives Regarding Ethically and Clinically Important Aspects of Trial Design in Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials for Hemodialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are trials in which intact groups such as hemodialysis centers or shifts are randomized to treatment or control arms. Pragmatic CRTs have been promoted as a promising trial design for nephrology research yet may also pose ethical challenges. While randomization occurs at the cluster level, the intervention and data collection may vary in a CRT, challenging the identification of research participants. Moreover, when a waiver of patient consent is granted by a research ethics committee, there is an open question as to whether and to what degree patients should be notified about ongoing research or be provided with a debrief regarding the nature and results of the trial upon completion. While empirical and conceptual research exploring ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs has begun to emerge, there has been limited discussion with patients, families, or caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Objective

To explore with patients and families with experience of hemodialysis research the challenges raised by different approaches to designing pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Specifically, their perceptions of (1) the use of a waiver of consent, (2) notification processes and information provided to participants, and (3) any other concerns about cluster randomized designs in hemodialysis.

Design

Focus group and interview discussions of hypothetical clinical trial designs.

Setting

Focus groups and interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconference or telephone.

Participants

Patient partners in hemodialysis research, defined as patients with personal experience of dialysis or a family member who had experience supporting a patient receiving hemodialysis, who have been actively involved in discussions to advise a research team on the design, conduct, or implementation of a hemodialysis trial.

Methods

Participants were invited to participate in focus groups or individual discussions that were audio recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Results

Two focus groups, three individual interviews, and one interview involving a patient and family member were conducted with 17 individuals between February 2019 and May 2020. Participants expressed support for approaches that emphasized patient choice. Disclosure of patient-relevant risks and information were key themes. Both consent and notification processes served to generate trust, but bypassing patient choice was perceived as undermining this trust. Participants did not dismiss the option of a waiver of consent. They were, however, more restrictive in their views about when a waiver of consent may be acceptable. Patient partners were skeptical of claims to impracticability based on costs or the time commitments for staff.

Limitations

All participants were from Canada and had been involved in the design or conduct of a trial, limiting the degree to which results may be extrapolated.

Conclusions

Given the preferences of participants to be afforded the opportunity to decide about trial participation, we argue that investigators should thoroughly investigate approaches that allow participants to make an informed choice regarding trial participation. In keeping with the preference for autonomous choice, there remains a need to further explore how consent approaches can be designed to facilitate clinical trial conduct while meeting their ethical requirements. Finally, further work is needed to define the limited circumstances in which waivers of consent are appropriate.

SUBMITTER: Nicholls SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8317238 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of psychosocial issues affecting patients with kidney failure.ObjectiveWe sought to examine Canadian nephrologists' attitudes and opinions regarding the importance of renal patient psychosocial care, nephrologists' roles, and experience with psychosocial care in addition to what barriers, if any, prevent these physicians from providing psychosocial care to their patients.DesignA self-administered, survey questionnaire.SettingOnline.SampleCanadian Society of Nephrology members who predominantly work in clinical care with adult, in-center hemodialysis patients.MeasurementsMeasurements of the survey include demographics, training, and nephrologists' opinions regarding their role in administering psychosocial care, potential administrative and patient time constraints, accessibility of other health care workers for this activity, and factors that influence or impede physicians' ability to address their patients' psychosocial needs.MethodsA self-administered survey was sent to almost 500 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology between November 2018 and December 2018. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather opinions and attitudes on psychosocial care delivery as well as potential influencing factors on nephrologists' ability to provide this care. A univariate statistical analysis was used to analyze survey responses.ResultsA total of 30 nephrologists responded to the survey, generating a 6% response rate. Respondents varied across provinces, with the majority being staff nephrologists (80%). While over 94% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that focus on psychosocial care improves patient outcomes, only 43% felt that staff nephrologists were suited to provide this care to patients; 97% of respondents believed social workers to be the most suited to provide this. Lack of additional supporting health care members, the need for additional training, too many administrative duties, and empathy fatigue were some of the predominant barriers respondents felt prevented them from addressing the psychosocial care of their patients.LimitationsA low response rate for the survey was obtained, roughly 6%, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Survey answers by respondents may be different from those by nonrespondents. Answers may be subject to social desirability and/or selection bias.ConclusionNephrologists believe that the current psychosocial care of patients in hemodialysis units is inadequate. However, further research is necessary to elucidate the barriers nephrologists face in providing psychosocial care and the changes required to most effectively implement optimal psychosocial care for patients with kidney failure in hemodialysis units.

Project description:Background:Pragmatic cluster randomized trials (CRTs) offer an opportunity to improve health care by answering important questions about the comparative effectiveness of treatments using a trial design that can be embedded in routine care. There is a lack of empirical research that addresses ethical issues generated by pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Objective:To identify stakeholder perceptions of ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs conducted in hemodialysis. Design:Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting:In-person or telephone interviews with an international group of stakeholders. Participants:Stakeholders (clinical investigators, methodologists, ethicists and research ethics committee members, and other knowledge users) who had been involved in the design or conduct of a pragmatic individual patient or cluster randomized trial in hemodialysis, or their role would require them to review and evaluate pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Methods:Interviews were conducted in-person or over the telephone and were audio-recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results:Sixteen interviews were conducted with 19 individuals. Interviewees were largely drawn from North America (84%) and were predominantly clinical investigators (42%). Six themes were identified in which pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis raise ethical issues: (1) patients treated with hemodialysis as a vulnerable population, (2) appropriate approaches to informed consent, (3) research burdens, (4) roles and responsibilities of gatekeepers, (5) inequities in access to research, and (6) advocacy for patient-centered research and outcomes. Limitations:Participants were largely from North America and did not include research staff, who may have differing perspectives. Conclusions:The six themes reflect concerns relating to individual rights, but also the need to consider population-level issues. To date, concerns regarding inequity of access to research and the need for patient-centered research have received less coverage than other, well-known, issues such as consent. Pragmatic CRTs offer a potential approach to address equity concerns and we suggest future ethical analyses and guidance for pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis embed equity considerations within them. We further note the potential for the co-creation of health data infrastructure with patients which would aid care but also facilitate patient-centered research. These present results will inform planned future guidance in relation to the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Trial Registration:Registration is not applicable as this is a qualitative study.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.ResultsOverall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsAs in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).