Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients' treatment preferences

被引:48
作者
Mills, Nicola [1 ]
Blazeby, Jane M. [1 ]
Hamdy, Freddie C. [2 ]
Neal, David E. [3 ]
Campbell, Bruce [4 ]
Wilson, Caroline [1 ]
Paramasivan, Sangeetha [1 ]
Donovan, Jenny L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol BS8 2PS, Avon, England
[2] Univ Oxford, John Radcliffe Hosp, Nuffield Dept Surg, Oxford OX3 9DU, England
[3] Addenbrookes Hosp, Univ Dept Oncol, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, England
[4] Univ Exeter, Royal Devon & Exeter Hosp, Sch Med, Exeter EX2 5DW, Devon, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Treatment preferences; Qualitative research methods; Randomized controlled trials; Recruitment to randomized controlled trials; Informed consent; ProtecT study; CLINICAL-TRIALS; DECISION-MAKING; RANDOM ALLOCATION; PROSTATE-CANCER; BARRIERS; PARTICIPATION; COMMUNICATION; INFORMATION; CHALLENGES; DOCTORS;
D O I
10.1186/1745-6215-15-323
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: Patients' treatment preferences are often cited as barriers to recruitment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated how RCT recruiters reacted to patients' treatment preferences and identified key strategies to improve informed decision-making and trial recruitment. Methods: Audio-recordings of 103 RCT recruitment appointments with 96 participants in three UK multicenter pragmatic RCTs were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Recruiters' responses to expressed treatment preferences were assessed in one RCT (ProtecT -Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) in which training on exploring preferences had been given, and compared with two other RCTs where this specific training had not been given. Results: Recruiters elicited treatment preferences similarly in all RCTs but responses to expressed preferences differed substantially. In the ProtecT RCT, patients' preferences were not accepted at face value but were explored and discussed at length in three key ways: eliciting and acknowledging the preference rationale, balancing treatment views, and emphasizing the need to keep an open mind and consider all treatments. By exploring preferences, recruiters enabled participants to become clearer about whether their views were robust enough to be sustained or were sufficiently weak that participation in the RCT became possible. Conversely, in the other RCTs, treatment preferences were often readily accepted without further discussion or understanding the reasoning behind them, suggesting that patients were not given the opportunity to fully consider all treatments and trial participation. Conclusions: Recruiters can be trained to elicit and address patients' treatment preferences, enabling those who may not have considered trial participation to do so. Without specific guidance, some RCT recruiters are likely to accept initial preferences at face value, missing opportunities to promote more informed decision-making. Training interventions for recruiters that incorporate key strategies to manage treatment preferences, as in the ProtecT study, are required to facilitate recruitment and informed consent.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis [J].
Adamson, Simon J. ;
Bland, J. Martin ;
Hay, Elaine M. ;
Johnson, Ruth E. ;
Jones, Gareth T. ;
Kitchener, Henry ;
Moffett, Jennifer A. Klaber ;
Macfarlane, Gary J. ;
MacPherson, Hugh ;
McLean, Sionnadh ;
Nelson, Linsey ;
Salisbury, Chris ;
Thomas, Elaine ;
Tilbrook, Helen E. ;
Torgerson, David J. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 337 :85-87
[2]   Strategic physician communication and oncology clinical trials [J].
Albrecht, TL ;
Blanchard, C ;
Ruckdeschel, JC ;
Coovert, M ;
Strongbow, R .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1999, 17 (10) :3324-3332
[3]  
[Anonymous], CONTENT ANAL INTRO I
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2004, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects
[5]   Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research [J].
Bower, P ;
King, M ;
Nazareth, I ;
Lampe, F ;
Sibbald, B .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2005, 61 (03) :685-695
[6]   You decide doctor. What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean? [J].
Bowling, A ;
Rowe, G .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2005, 59 (11) :914-915
[7]   Informed decision making in outpatient practice - Time to get back to basics [J].
Braddock, CH ;
Edwards, KA ;
Hasenberg, NM ;
Laidley, TL ;
Levinson, W .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 282 (24) :2313-2320
[8]   Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials: describing current practice [J].
Brown, RF ;
Butow, PN ;
Ellis, P ;
Boyle, F ;
Tattersall, MHN .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2004, 58 (12) :2445-2457
[9]   Quality improvement report - Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study [J].
Donovan, J ;
Mills, N ;
Smith, M ;
Brindle, L ;
Jacoby, A ;
Peters, T ;
Frankel, S ;
Neal, D ;
Hamdy, F .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2002, 325 (7367) :766-769
[10]   The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials [J].
Donovan, Jenny L. ;
de Salis, Isabel ;
Toerien, Merran ;
Paramasivan, Sangeetha ;
Hamdy, Freddie C. ;
Blazeby, Jane M. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (08) :912-920