Dataset Information

The Cure SMA Clinical Trial Experience Survey: A Study of Trial Participant Perspectives on Clinical Trial Management and Patient-Centric Management Practices.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Understanding clinical trial experiences can illuminate opportunities to optimize trial design and management, with potential benefits for recruitment and retention. This study sought to better understand clinical trial participant experiences and attitudes within spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and how the evolving treatment landscape and participant characteristics may predict attitudes.

Methods

A survey was developed following a review of published literature and discussions with caregivers of SMA trial participants. This was distributed via email to known trial participants in Cure SMA's database, announcements in Cure SMA's newsletter, and emails to SMA clinical trial principal investigators.

Results

Seventy complete surveys reflecting unique clinical trial experiences were included in analysis. Responses revealed positive attitudes about clinical trial management overall. Top motivators for trial participation included clinical benefit, investigational drug access, and the opportunity to help others. Top concerns were safety, whether benefits would justify risks, and concerns about pain accompanying tests. The greatest stressors were fear of pain, adverse event concerns, and challenges managing medical complications of SMA. Top benefits of trial participation were hope for a better future, helping others, and relationships with the study team. In regression analysis, participant gender, age, and race all emerged as significant predictors (p < 0.05) of motivators, concerns, stressors, and benefits, as did respondent type, knowledge about SMA, distance to the trial site, and treatment era. Top recommendations for improving study management all related to receiving more information.

Conclusion

This research provides new perspective on patient experiences in SMA clinical trials. It underscores the importance of information and efforts to anticipate and accommodate participant needs. These findings may inform study design and interactions with research participants. They may become especially important in supporting recruitment and retention as more treatment options become available.

SUBMITTER: Peterson IS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9149668 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: While there is an increasing consensus that clinical trial results should be shared with trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods. The aim of this study is to use a patient and public involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-preferred method of receiving results of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypo-Thyroidism Trial (TRUST). Methods: This is a mixed methods study with three consecutive phases. Phase 1 iteratively developed a patient-preferred result method using semi-structured focus groups and a consensus-orientated-decision model, a PPI group to refine the method and adult literacy review for plain English assessment. Phase 2 was a single-blind parallel group trial. Irish TRUST participants were randomised to the intervention (patient-preferred method) and control group (standard method developed by lead study site). Phase 3 used a patient understanding questionnaire to compare patient understanding of results between the two methods. Results: Patients want to receive results of clinical trials, with qualitative findings indicating three key themes including 'acknowledgement of individual contribution', 'contributing for a collective benefit' and 'receiving accessible and easy to understand results'. Building on these findings, a patient-preferred method of receiving results was developed as described above. TRUST participants (n=101) were randomised to the intervention. The questionnaire response rate was 74% for the intervention group and 62% for the control group. There were no differences in patient understanding between the two methods. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct PPI with regard to the dissemination of results. The study identified and developed a patient-preferred method of receiving clinical trial results for older adults over 65 years. Although, in this study PPI did not influence patients' final understanding of results, it provides a record of the process of conducting PPI within the clinical trial setting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In recent years, sports leagues and sports medicine experts have developed guidelines for concussion management. The extent to which current clinical practice is consistent with guideline recommendations is unclear. At the collegiate level, there have been few examinations of concussion management practices and the extent to which meaningful differences across divisions of competition exist. PURPOSE:The purposes of this study were to (1) examine current practices in concussion diagnosis and management at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) member colleges, (2) explore the extent to which current practices reflect current recommendations for concussion diagnosis and management, and (3) determine whether there are differences in management patterns across divisions of competition. DESIGN:Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS:An electronic questionnaire was sent to sports medicine clinicians at all NCAA member colleges during September and October 2013. Clinicians were asked about baseline assessments, diagnosis and management practices, return-to-play protocols, the perceived prevalence of underdiagnosis, and basic demographic information. RESULTS:Approximately 30% (n = 866) of contacted clinicians, representing nearly 50% (n = 527) of NCAA member colleges, responded to the questionnaire. Preparticipation baseline examinations were administered at the majority of schools (95%), but most (87.5%) administered baseline assessments only to selected high-risk athletes. Computerized neurocognitive testing and balance assessments were most commonly used as preseason baseline and postinjury assessments. Multimodal examination in line with NCAA and other guidance was used only at a minority of institutions. Athletic trainers most commonly administered and interpreted the preseason baseline examination. Most clinicians reported that their institutions' practices were in line with NCAA guidelines during the first 24 hours of an athlete's concussion diagnosis, with exact percentages varying across measures. Differences across divisions of competition included shorter return-to-play time at Division I schools than Division III schools (9.13 vs 10.31 days, respectively) and more frequently referring concussed athletes to a physician within 24 hours of diagnosis at Division I schools. CONCLUSION:Concussion management at many colleges in the United States incorporates elements recommended by current guidelines; however, there is room to improve. Increasing the use of a multimodal baseline and postinjury examination will elevate the concussion care provided to college athletes and better align with best practice guidance.