Dataset Information

Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients.

Objectives

To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial.

Research design

Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios.

Subjects

Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses.

Measures

The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none).

Results

A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial.

Conclusions

Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.

SUBMITTER: Weinfurt KP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359628 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.ObjectiveWe sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.DesignProspective, qualitative focus group study.ParticipantsFocus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.ApproachAll groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.Key resultsReactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.ConclusionsThe detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Web-based self-report surveying has increased in popularity, as it can rapidly yield large samples at a low cost. Despite this increase in popularity, in the area of youth mental health, there is a distinct lack of research comparing the results of Web-based self-report surveys with the more traditional and widely accepted computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). OBJECTIVE:The Second Australian Young and Well National Survey 2014 sought to compare differences in respondent response patterns using matched items on CATI versus a Web-based self-report survey. The aim of this study was to examine whether responses varied as a result of item sensitivity, that is, the item's susceptibility to exaggeration on underreporting and to assess whether certain subgroups demonstrated this effect to a greater extent. METHODS:A subsample of young people aged 16 to 25 years (N=101), recruited through the Second Australian Young and Well National Survey 2014, completed the identical items on two occasions: via CATI and via Web-based self-report survey. Respondents also rated perceived item sensitivity. RESULTS:When comparing CATI with the Web-based self-report survey, a Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis showed that respondents answered 14 of the 42 matched items in a significantly different way. Significant variation in responses (CATI vs Web-based) was more frequent if the item was also rated by the respondents as highly sensitive in nature. Specifically, 63% (5/8) of the high sensitivity items, 43% (3/7) of the neutral sensitivity items, and 0% (0/4) of the low sensitivity items were answered in a significantly different manner by respondents when comparing their matched CATI and Web-based question responses. The items that were perceived as highly sensitive by respondents and demonstrated response variability included the following: sexting activities, body image concerns, experience of diagnosis, and suicidal ideation. For high sensitivity items, a regression analysis showed respondents who were male (beta=-.19, P=.048) or who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET; beta=-.32, P=.001) were significantly more likely to provide different responses on matched items when responding in the CATI as compared with the Web-based self-report survey. The Web-based self-report survey, however, demonstrated some evidence of avidity and attrition bias. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with CATI, Web-based self-report surveys are highly cost-effective and had higher rates of self-disclosure on sensitive items, particularly for respondents who identify as male and NEET. A drawback to Web-based surveying methodologies, however, includes the limited control over avidity bias and the greater incidence of attrition bias. These findings have important implications for further development of survey methods in the area of health and well-being, especially when considering research topics (in this case diagnosis, suicidal ideation, sexting, and body image) and groups that are being recruited (young people, males, and NEET).

Project description:BackgroundMany patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to speak up and responding when they do are needed.ObjectiveTo identify factors which influence speaking up, and to examine the impact of apology when problems occur.DesignRandomised experiment using a vignette-based questionnaire describing 3 care breakdowns (slow response to call bell, rude aide, unanswered questions). The role of the person inquiring about concerns (doctor, nurse, patient care specialist), extent of the prompt (invitation to patient to share concerns) and level of apology were varied.SettingNational online survey.Participants1188 adults aged ≥35 years were sampled from an online panel representative of the entire US population, created and maintained by GfK, an international survey research organisation; 65.5% response rate.Main outcomes and measuresAffective responses to care breakdowns, intent to speak up, willingness to recommend the hospital.ResultsTwice as many participants receiving an in-depth prompt about care breakdowns would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no prompt (18.4% vs 8.8% respectively (p=0.0067)). Almost three times as many participants receiving a full apology would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no apology (34.1% vs 13.6% respectively ((p<0.0001)). Feeling upset was a strong determinant of greater intent to speak up, but a substantial number of upset participants would not 'definitely' speak up. A more extensive prompt did not result in greater likelihood of speaking up. The inquirer's role influenced speaking up for two of the three breakdowns (rudeness and slow response).ConclusionsAsking about possible care breakdowns in detail, and offering a full apology when breakdowns are reported substantially increases patients' willingness to recommend the hospital.

Project description:To examine whether a first abortion increases risk of mental health disorders compared with a first childbirth with and without considering prepregnancy mental health and adverse exposures, childhood economic status, miscarriage history, age at first abortion or childbirth, and race or ethnicity.A cohort study compared rates of mental disorders (anxiety, mood, impulse-control, substance use, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation) among 259 women postabortion and 677 women postchildbirth aged 18-42 years at the time of interview from The National Comorbidity Survey-Replication.The percentage of women with no, one, two, and three or more mental health disorders before their first abortion was 37.8%, 19.7%, 15.2%, and 27.3% and before their first childbirth was 57.9%, 19.6%, 9.2%, and 13.3%, respectively, indicating that women in the abortion group had more prior mental health disorders than women in the childbirth group (P<.001). Although in unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models, abortion compared with childbirth was associated with statistically significant higher hazards of postpregnancy mental health disorders, associations were reduced and became nonstatistically significant for five disorders after adjusting for the aforementioned factors. Hazard ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals dropped from 1.52 (1.08-2.15) to 1.12 (0.87-1.46) for anxiety disorders; from 1.56 (1.23-1.98) to 1.18 (0.88-1.56) for mood disorders; from 1.62 (1.02-2.57) to 1.10 (0.75-1.62) for impulse-control disorders; from 2.53 (1.09-5.86) to 1.82 (0.63-5.25) for eating disorders; and from 1.62 (1.09-2.40) to 1.25 (0.88-1.78) for suicidal ideation. Only the relationship between abortion and substance use disorders remained statistically significant, although the hazard ratio dropped from 3.05 (1.94-4.79) to 2.30 (1.35-3.92).After accounting for confounding factors, abortion was not a statistically significant predictor of subsequent anxiety, mood, impulse-control, and eating disorders or suicidal ideation. LEVEL OF EVEDIENCE: II.

Project description:Background and objectivesMany investigators of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) are unfamiliar with the embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and the indispensable pilot phase preceding ePCTs. This paper provides a much-needed example for such a pilot phase and discusses implementation barriers and additional infrastructure and implementation strategies developed in preparation for a nationwide AD/ADRD ePCT.Research design and methodsTwo pilot trials were conducted in 2 hospices sequentially to refine and test Aliviado Dementia Care-Hospice Edition, a complex quality improvement intervention for advanced dementia symptom management. Readiness for the subsequent full-scale ePCT was assessed by three milestones: ≥80% training completion rate ("feasibility"), ≥80% posttraining survey respondents indicating intention for practice changes ("applicability"), and at least 1 Aliviado care plan/assessment instrument administered in ≥75% of dementia patients admitted to home hospice within 1-month posttraining ("fidelity").ResultsParticipants included 72 interdisciplinary team members and 11 patients with AD/ADRD across the pilots. Feasibility, applicability, and fidelity outcomes (92%, 93%, and 100%, respectively) all surpassed the preestablished milestones (80%, 80%, and 75%). Main implementation challenges were related to hospice staff turnover, integration of the Aliviado toolbox materials within the electronic health records, and hospices' limited research experience and infrastructure.Discussion and implicationsThis pilot phase demonstrated feasibility, applicability, and fidelity required to proceed to the full-scale ePCT. Our study findings and discussions of additional infrastructure and implementation strategies developed following the pilot phase can inform researchers and clinicians interested in conducting AD/ADRD-related pilot studies for ePTCs or quality improvement initiatives.Clinical trials registration numberNCT03681119.

Project description:BackgroundThe UK is rolling out a national childhood influenza immunisation programme for children, delivered through primary care and schools. Behaviourally-informed letters and reminders have been successful at increasing uptake of other public health interventions. Therefore, we investigated the effects of a behaviourally-informed letter on uptake of the vaccine at GP practices, and of a letter and a reminder (SMS/ email) on uptake at schools.Methods and resultsStudy 1 was a cluster-randomised parallel trial of 21,786 two- and three-year olds in 250 GP practices, conducted during flu season (September to January inclusive) 2016/7. The intervention was a centrally-sent behaviourally-informed invitation letter, control was usual care. The proportion of two- and three-year olds in each practice who received a vaccination by 31st January 2017 was 23.4% in the control group compared to 37.1% in the intervention group (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.82, 2.05, p < 0.001). Study 2 was a 2 (behavioural letter vs standard letter) × 2 (reminder vs no reminder) factorial trial of 1108 primary schools which included 3010 school years 1-3. Letters were sent to parents from providers, and reminders sent to parents from the schools. In the standard-letter-no-reminder arm, an average of 61.6% of eligible children in each school year were vaccinated, compared to 61.9% in the behavioural-letter-no-reminder arm, 63.5% in the standard-letter-plus-reminder arm, and 62.9% in the behavioural-letter-plus reminder condition, F(3, 2990) = 2.68, p = 0.046. In a multi-level model, with demographic variables as fixed effects, the proportion of eligible students in the school year who were vaccinated increased with the reminder, β = 0.086 (0.041), p < 0.036, but there was no effect of the letter nor any interaction effect.ConclusionSending a behaviourally informed invitation letter can increase uptake of childhood influenza vaccines at the GP surgery compared to usual practice. A reminder SMS or email can increase uptake of the influenza vaccine in schools, but the effect size was minimal.Trial registrationStudy 1: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02921633. Study 2: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02883972.