Coerced consent in clinical research: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the low-risk nature of participation in most clinical anesthesia trials, subject recruitment on the same day as surgery is often restricted due to the concerns of researchers and local research ethics boards that same-day consent may not afford adequate time and opportunity for patients to weigh and make decisions, as well as perceptions of patient vulnerability immediately prior to surgery that could impact the voluntary nature and the rigor of the informed consent process. However, specialties such as anesthesiology, critical care, interventional radiology, and emergency medicine have a varied pattern of practice and patient acquaintance that does not typically afford the luxury of time or, in many cases, advance consent for participation in research. Indeed, the initial encounter between anesthesiologists and patients undergoing elective procedures routinely occurs on the day of surgery. Concerns of coercion related to same-day consent for clinical anesthesia research trials have not been borne out in the literature, and represent a significant obstacle to clinical researchers, as well as to the patients who are denied opportunities for potential benefit through participation in research studies. METHODS: We describe the protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial examining the voluntariness of patient consent, solicited either in advance of surgery or on the same day, to participate in an anesthesia research study at Women's College Hospital. One hundred fourteen patients scheduled to undergo ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair facilitated by general anesthesia with an adductor canal block will be randomized for recruitment either (a) in the pre-operative assessment clinic before the day of surgery or (b) on the day of surgery, to be approached for consent to participate in a fabricated research study of adjunct medications in adductor canal blocks. Regardless of allocation, patients in both groups will receive the same routine standard of care and will complete a post-operative questionnaire to signal perceptions of undue influence in the process of providing informed consent for the fabricated trial. DISCUSSION: This study will inform trial design and practice guidelines surrounding the amount of time patients ought to be afforded in order to make durable decisions to participate (or not) in clinical research studies. This is expected to impact trial recruitment in a variety of clinical settings where researchers have only brief opportunities to interface with patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (OSF), registration #46twc, on 2023-Mar-17.

The SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants, based on qualitative findings from trial participants and site staff.

BACKGROUND: Sharing trial results with participants is a moral imperative, but too often does not happen in appropriate ways. METHODS: We carried out semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 13) and site staff (n = 11), and surveyed 180 patients and 68 site staff who were part of the Show RESPECT study, which tested approaches to sharing results with participants in the context of the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Qualitative and free-text data were analysed thematically, and findings used to develop the SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants. This paper presents the framework, with illustrations drawn from the Show RESPECT study. RESULTS: Our adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework covers (1) Supporting and preparing trial participants to receive results, (2) HOw will the results reach participants?, (3) Who are the trial participants?, (4) REsults-what do they show?, (5) Special considerations, (6) Provider-who will share results with participants?, (7) Expertise and resources, (8) Communication tools and (9) Timing of sharing results. While the data upon which the framework is based come from a single trial, many of our findings are corroborated by findings from other studies in this area, supporting the transferability of our framework to trials beyond the UK ovarian cancer setting in which our work took place. CONCLUSIONS: This adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework can guide researchers as they plan how to share aggregate trial results with participants. While our data are drawn from a single trial context, the findings from Show RESPECT illustrate how approaches to communication in a specific trial can influence patient and staff experiences of feedback of trial results. The framework generated from these findings can be adapted to fit different trial contexts and used by other researchers to plan the sharing of results with their own participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN96189403. Registered on February 26, 2019. Show RESPECT was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) and the NIHR CRN.

Theory of change for addressing sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in Australian health and medical research, policy and practice.

Sex and gender are inadequately considered in health and medical research, policy and practice, leading to preventable disparities in health and wellbeing. Several global institutions, journals, and funding bodies have developed policies and guidelines to improve the inclusion of diverse participants and consideration of sex and gender in research design and reporting and the delivery of clinical care. However, according to recent evaluations, these policies have had limited impact on the inclusion of diverse research participants, adequate reporting of sex and gender data and reducing preventable inequities in access to, and quality provision of, healthcare. In Australia, the Sex and Gender Policies in Medical Research (SGPMR) project aims to address sex and gender bias in health and medical research by (i) examining how sex and gender are currently considered in Australian research policy and practice; (ii) working with stakeholders to develop policy interventions; and (iii) understanding the wider impacts, including economic, of improved sex and gender consideration in Australian health and medical research. In this paper we describe the development of a theory of change (ToC) for the SGPMR project. The ToC evolved from a two-stage process consisting of key stakeholder interviews and a consultation event. The ToC aims to identify the pathways to impact from improved consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice, and highlight how key activities and policy levers can lead to improvements in clinical practice and health outcomes. In describing the development of the ToC, we present an entirely novel framework for outlining how sex and gender can be appropriately considered within the confines of health and medical research, policy and practice.

Personality vulnerabilities and adverse event reporting in phase 1 clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 clinical trials involve rigorous safety monitoring to identify any adverse effects of investigational treatments. There is growing evidence that healthy volunteers recruited in these studies may differ with respect to personality traits from the general population. This, in turn, may have a significant impact on the reporting of adverse events, particularly in trials investigating psychoactive treatments, including the psychedelic substances. MAIN BODY: This analysis stems from our combined experience as investigators in phase 1 clinical trials and conveys an experiential understanding of the impact of psychological heterogeneity on study participation, reporting of adverse events and study outcomes. CONCLUSION: Participant variability due to psychological characteristics is regularly overlooked in phase 1 clinical trials and may significantly impact on reporting of the adverse events. In our opinion, healthy volunteers who present for these studies should not only be defined by the absence of past or current medical and psychiatric illness but also characterised by their psychological attributes.

Trial participants' self-reported understanding of randomisation phrases in participation information leaflets can be high, but acceptability of some descriptions is low, especially those linked to gambling and luck.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that trial participants often struggle to understand participant information leaflets (PILs) for clinical trials, including the concept of randomisation. We analysed the language used to describe randomisation in PILs and determine the most understandable and acceptable description through public and participant feedback. METHODS: We collected 280 PILs/informed consent forms and one video animation from clinical research facilities/clinical trial units in Ireland and the UK. We extracted text on how randomisation was described, plus trial characteristics. We conducted content analysis to group the randomisation phrases inductively. We then excluded phrases that appeared more than once or were very similar to others. The final list of randomisation phrases was then presented to an online panel of participants and the public. Panel members were asked to rate each phrase on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of their understanding of the phrase, confidence in their understanding and acceptability of the phrase. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty PILs and the transcribed text from one video animation represented 229 ongoing or concluded trials. The pragmatic content analysis generated five inductive categories: (1) explanation of why randomisation is required in trials; (2) synonyms for randomisation; (3) comparative randomisation phrases; (4) elaborative phrases for randomisation (5) and phrases that describe the process of randomisation. We had 48 unique phrases, which were shared with 73 participants and members of the public. Phrases that were well understood were not necessarily acceptable. Participants understood, but disliked, comparative phrases that referenced gambling, e.g. toss of a coin, like a lottery, roll of a die. They also disliked phrases that attributed decision-making to computers or automated systems. Participants liked plain language descriptions of what randomisation is and those that did not use comparative phrases. CONCLUSIONS: Potential trial participants are clear on their likes and dislikes when it comes to describing randomisation in PILs. We make five recommendations for practice.

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols.

BACKGROUND: Retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging and trial teams are often required to use strategies to ensure retention or improve it. Other than monetary incentives, there is no requirement to disclose the use of retention strategies to the participant. Additionally, not all retention strategies are developed at the planning stage, i.e. post-funding during protocol development, but some protocols include strategies for participant retention as retention is considered and planned for early in the trial planning stage. It is yet unknown if these plans are communicated in the corresponding participant information leaflets (PILs). The purpose of our study was to determine if PILs communicate plans to promote participant retention and, if so, are these outlined in the corresponding trial protocol. METHODS: Ninety-two adult PILs and their 90 corresponding protocols from Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) in the UK were analysed. Directed (deductive) content analysis was used to analyse the participant retention text from the PILs. Data were presented using a narrative summary and frequencies where appropriate. RESULTS: Plans to promote participant retention were communicated in 81.5% (n = 75/92) of PILs. Fifty-seven percent (n = 43/75) of PILs communicated plans to use "combined strategies" to promote participant retention. The most common individual retention strategy was telling the participants that data collection for the trial would be scheduled during routine care visits (16%; n = 12/75 PILs). The importance of retention and the impact that missing or deleted data (deleting data collected prior to withdrawal) has on the ability to answer the research question were explained in 6.5% (n = 6/92) and 5.4% (n = 5/92) of PILs respectively. Out of the 59 PILs and 58 matching protocols that both communicated plans to use strategies to promote participant retention, 18.6% (n = 11/59) communicated the same information, the remaining 81.4% (n = 48/59) of PILs either only partially communicated (45.8%; n = 27/59) the same information or did not communicate the same information (35.6%; n = 21/59) as the protocol with regard to the retention strategy(ies). CONCLUSION: Retention strategies are frequently communicated to potential trial participants in PILs; however, the information provided often differs from the content in the corresponding protocol. Participant retention considerations are best done at the planning stage of the trial and we encourage trial teams to be consistent in the communication of these strategies in both the protocol and PIL.

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters. CONCLUSION: Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Protecting Participants Is Not the Top Priority in Clinical Research.

This Viewpoint discusses the need to protect participants in clinical research and the opportunity to address this issue as the World Medical Association works to revise its Declaration of Helsinki, which governs medical research ethics.

Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership.

OBJECTIVE: Research cannot advance without the voluntary participation of human participants. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: Full participation of research participants is often restrained by the traditional research framework, which relegates them to a predefined participant role and allows them only quasi-scripted opportunities to contribute to research processes and outcomes. Terms commonly used to refer to research participants do not reflect their significant role or send a clear message about their value. The authors propose a shift from 'patient participant' to 'participant partner.' Recognition of the true partnership between the participant and the research team, from the consent process to the trial's end, will encourage and enable fuller participation. CONCLUSION: Changing the rhetoric of research in the labelling of research participants will require dialogue. 'Respect for persons' demands it, and the research process will be better for it.

Determining capacity of people with dementia to take part in research: an electronic survey study of researcher confidence, competence and training needs.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are required to determine whether a person has capacity to consent to a research study before they are able to participate. The Mental Capacity Act and accompanying Code of Practice for England and Wales provide some guidance on this process, but researchers have identified that it can be difficult to determine capacity to consent when a person has complex cognitive or communication needs. This study aimed to understand the experiences and opinions of researchers who recruit people with dementia to research projects, to inform the future development of training resources. METHODS: A mixed method, cross-sectional, electronic survey was circulated via social media and research networks in England and Wales. The survey remained open for ten weeks and included open and closed questions exploring respondents' confidence in determining capacity in the context of recruiting people with dementia to consent, their views on training and support they have experienced and their suggestions for future training and support needs. RESULTS: 60 respondents completed the survey from across England and Wales. Although 75% of respondents had experience of determining capacity to consent with people with dementia to research, only 13% rated themselves as feeling 'very confident' in this. Qualitative content analysis of open responses led to the generation of six themes, explaining researchers' confidence, competence and future training needs in this area: (1) Researcher uncertainties, (2) Lack of time, (3) Balancing information complexity with accessibility, (4) Gatekeepers, (5) Existing enablers and (6) Envisioning future training. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers would benefit from specific training in undertaking conversations around consent with people with dementia. People with dementia may have fluctuating capacity, and despite support from caregivers, researchers have little practical guidance on methods of determining a person's ability to understand or appreciate the information they have provided during the consent process. Given the development of large complex trials within dementia research, there is an urgency to develop specific and practical guidance and training for researchers working with people with dementia and their families.

Constitutional and legal status of the subject during biomedical research.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: To find out the peculiarities of constitutional and legal status of the subject during biomedical research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: A synergistic approach helps predict possible fluctuations and vectors of development, taking into account various social and technical processes of influence on the status of the subject; comprehensive - involves the analysis of the research subject within the framework of a combination of different scientific schools, concepts and methods and provides opportunities for the development of unified standards, benchmarks, principles and general norms of legal regulation. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The constitutional-legal status of the subject is the position of the subject (patient, object of research) established and established by the norms of constitutional law, which distinguishes him as a special subject of legal relations in the process of conducting biomedical research and consists of a set of rights and obligations and specifics of the legal liability of its participants.

When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate.

BACKGROUND: Providing informed consent for trials requires providing trial participants with comprehensive information about the trial, including information about potential risks and benefits. It is required by the ethical principle of respecting patient autonomy. Our study examines the variation in the way information about potential trial benefits and harms is shared in participant information leaflets (PILs). METHODS: A total of 214 PILs and informed consent forms from clinical trials units (CTUs) and Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) in Ireland and the UK were assessed by two authors independently, to check the extent to which they adhered to seven recently developed principles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third. RESULTS: Usage of the seven principles varied widely between PILs regardless of the intended recipient or trial type. None of the PILs used more than four principles, and some (4%) used none. Twenty-seven per cent of PILs presented information about all known potential harms, whereas 45% presented information on all known potential benefits. Some PILs did not provide any potential harms or potential benefits (8%). There was variation in the information contained in adult and children PILs and across disease areas. CONCLUSION: Significant variation exists in how potential trial benefits and harms are described to potential trial participants in PILs in our sample. Usage of the seven principles of good practice will promote consistency, ensure informed ethical decision-making and invoke trust and transparency. In the long term, a standardised PIL template is needed.

Exploring the consent process among pregnant and breastfeeding women taking part in a maternal vaccine clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials presents unique challenges for the informed consent process. We explored the expectations and experiences of the pregnant women, spouses/partners, health workers and stakeholders of the consent process during a Group B Streptococcus maternal vaccine trial. METHODS: We interviewed 56 participants including pregnant women taking part in the trial, women not in the trial, health workers handling the trial procedures, spouses, and community stakeholders. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 23 women in the trial, in-depth interviews with 5 spouses, and 5 women not in the trial, key informant interviews with 5 health workers and 5 other stakeholders were undertaken. RESULTS: Decision-making by a pregnant woman to join a trial was done in consultation with spouse, parents, siblings, or trusted health workers. Written study information was appreciated by all but they suggested the use of audio and visual presentation to enhance understanding. Women stressed the need to ensure that their male partners received study information before their pregnant partners joined a clinical trial. Confidentiality in research was emphasised differently by individual participants; while some emphasised it for self, others were keen to protect their family members from being exposed, for allowing them to be involved in research. However, others wanted their community participation to be acknowledged. CONCLUSION: We found that pregnant women make decisions to join a clinical trial after consulting with close family. Our findings suggest the need for an information strategy which informs not only the pregnant woman, but also her family about the research she is invited to engage in.

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion. RESULTS: We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results). CONCLUSION: Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Protecting Privacy of Pregnant and LGBTQ+ Research Participants.

This Viewpoint summarizes existing federal regulations aimed at protecting research data, describes the challenges of enforcing these regulations, and discusses how evolving privacy technologies could be used to reduce health disparities and advance health equity among pregnant and LGBTQ+ research participants.

Exercise oncology clinical trials during treatments: a commentary to address the safety concerns of human subjects regulatory reviewers and committees.

Exercise oncology clinical trials contribute to the advancement of our scientific knowledge and to the safety and care of patients diagnosed with cancer. Nevertheless, regulatory reviewers and committees may not be familiar with the well-documented long-term health benefits and safety of the regular practice of physical activity. Moreover, they may not see how the benefits outweigh the risks in the context where patients diagnosed with cancer are typically seen as vulnerable. Therefore, we would like to provide a purpose-built overview of exercise oncology clinical trials for members involved in institutional review committees, including the Scientific Review Committee (SRC), the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to facilitate a greater understanding of the safety and benefits of physical activity during cancer treatments. Communication is key to improve the success of exercise oncology clinical trials, which are vital for patients diagnosed with cancer.