Dataset Information

Exploring reasons for recruitment failure in clinical trials: a qualitative study with clinical trial stakeholders in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Poor participant recruitment is the most frequent reason for premature discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), particularly if they are investigator-initiated. The aims of this qualitative study were to investigate (1) the views of clinical trial stakeholders from three different countries regarding reasons for recruitment failure in RCTs and (2) how these compare and contrast with the causes identified in a previous systematic review of RCT publications.

Methods

From August 2015 to November 2016, we conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of clinical trial stakeholders. This included investigators based in Germany (n = 9), Switzerland (n = 6) and Canada (n = 1) with personal experience of a discontinued RCT and 33 other stakeholders (e.g., representatives of ethics committees, clinical trial units, pharmaceutical industry) in Switzerland. Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Interviewees identified a total of 29 different reasons for recruitment failure. Overoptimistic recruitment estimates, too narrow eligibility criteria, lack of engagement of recruiters/trial team, lack of competence/training/experience of recruiters, insufficient initial funding, and high burden for trial participants were mentioned most frequently. The interview findings largely confirm the previous systematic review on published reasons for recruitment failure. However, eight new reasons for recruitment failure were identified in the interviews, which led to the checklist of reasons for recruitment failure being revised and a new category describing research environment-related factors being added.

Conclusions

This study highlights the diversity of often interlinked reasons for recruitment failure in RCTs. Integrating the findings of this interview study with a previous systematic review of RCT publications led to a comprehensive, structured checklist of empirically-informed reasons for recruitment failure. The checklist may be useful to guide further research on interventions to improve participant recruitment in RCTs and helpful for trial investigators, research ethics committees, and funding agencies when assessing trial feasibility with respect to recruitment.

SUBMITTER: Briel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8613940 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are common tools in policy and clinical practice informing clinical decisions at the bedside, governance of health facilities, health insurer and government spending, and patient choices. South Africa's health sector is transitioning to a national health insurance system, aiming to build on other primary health care initiatives to transform the previously segregated, inequitable services. Within these plans CPGs are an integral tool for delivering standardised and cost effective care. Currently, there is no accepted standard approach to developing, adapting or implementing CPGs efficiently or effectively in South Africa. We explored the current players; drivers; and the context and processes of primary care CPG development from the perspective of stakeholders operating at national level.MethodsWe used a qualitative approach. Sampling was initially purposeful, followed by snowballing and further sampling to reach representivity of primary care service providers. Individual in-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used thematic content analysis to analyse the data.ResultsWe conducted 37 in-depth interviews from June 2014-July 2015. We found CPG development and implementation were hampered by lack of human and funding resources for technical and methodological work; fragmentation between groups, and between national and provincial health sectors; and lack of agreed systems for CPG development and implementation. Some CPG contributors steadfastly work to improve processes aiming to enhance communication, use of evidence, and transparency to ensure credible guidance is produced. Many interviewed had shared values, and were driven to address inequity, however, resource gaps were perceived to create an enabling environment for commercial interests or personal agendas to drive the CPG development process.ConclusionsOur findings identified strengths and gaps in CPG development processes, and a need for national standards to guide CPG development and implementation. Based on our findings and suggestions from participants, a possible way forward would be for South Africa to have a centrally coordinated CPG unit to address these needs and aspects of fragmentation by devising processes that support collaboration, transparency and credibility across sectors and disciplines. Such an initiative will require adequate resourcing to build capacity and ensure support for the delivery of high quality CPGs for South African primary care.

Project description:IntroductionCanadians have had legal access to medical assistance in dying (MAiD) since 2016. However, despite substantial overlap in populations who request MAiD and who require palliative care (PC) services, policies and recommended practices regarding the optimal relationship between MAiD and PC services are not well developed. Multiple models are possible, including autonomous delivery of these services and formal or informal coordination, collaboration or integration. However, it is not clear which of these approaches are most appropriate, feasible or acceptable in different Canadian health settings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the post-pandemic period. The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the attitudes and opinions of key stakeholders from the government, health system, patient groups and academia in Canada regarding the optimal relationship between MAiD and PC services.Methods and analysisA qualitative, purposeful sampling approach will elicit stakeholder feedback of 25-30 participants using semistructured interviews. Stakeholders with expertise and engagement in MAiD or PC who hold leadership positions in their respective organisations across Canada will be invited to provide their perspectives on the relationship between MAiD and PC; capacity-building needs; policy development opportunities; and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relationship between MAiD and PC services. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis. A framework for integrated health services will be used to assess the impact of integrating services on multiple levels.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethical approval from the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (No 19-5518; Toronto, Canada). All participants will be required to provide informed electronic consent before a qualitative interview is scheduled, and to provide verbal consent prior to the start of the qualitative interview. Findings from this study could inform healthcare policy, the delivery of MAiD and PC, and enhance the understanding of the multilevel factors relevant for the delivery of these services. Findings will be disseminated in conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.Methods and findingsSix pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.ConclusionsCommunicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

Project description:BackgroundFront-of-package labelling regulations proposed by Health Canada in their Healthy Eating Strategy (2016) were finally passed in 2022, but remain unimplemented. This study analyzed interactions that occurred between stakeholders and government related to this policy proposal to identify key themes and policy implications.MethodsA qualitative framework analysis was conducted on publicly available documents for stakeholder correspondences related to front-of-package that occurred between 2016 and 2019 in Health Canada's Meetings and Correspondence on Healthy Eating database. Five sequential steps were applied: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation. A complex systems (i.e., a dynamic system with multiple interconnecting components) lens was incorporated in the final step to deepen the analysis.ResultsHundred and seventy-three documents were included, the majority from industry stakeholders (n = 108, 62.4%). Three overarching themes were identified: industry trying to control the agenda and resist regulation; questioning the evidence supporting the policy and its impact on the agri-food industry; and dismissing the need and effectiveness of the policy. Incorporating a complex system lens found industry and non-industry stakeholders held markedly different perspectives on how cohesive the system defined by the front-of-package labelling policy was, and the policy impact on its stability. Economic and opportunity costs were the main trade-offs, and symbol misinterpretation considered an unintended consequence by industry. Finally, some stakeholders argued for wider policy scope incorporating more products, while others requested a narrower approach through exemptions.ConclusionInteractions with industry stakeholders on health food policy proposals require careful consideration, given it may suit their interests to generate delays and policy discordance. Explicitly setting out the principles of engagement and actively encouraging non-industry stakeholder representation provides a more balanced approach to policy consultation and development.