Leila Rooshenas

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

Background Randomised 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 Findings Six 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. Conclusions Communicating 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.

Establishing nurse-led active surveillance for men with localised prostate cancer: development and formative evaluation of a model of care in the ProtecT trial.

Objectives To develop a nurse-led, urologist-supported model of care for men managed by active surveillance or active monitoring (AS/AM) for localised prostate cancer and provide a formative evaluation of its acceptability to patients, clinicians and nurses. Nurse-led care, comprising an explicit nurse-led protocol with support from urologists, was developed as part of the AM arm of the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Design Interviews and questionnaire surveys of clinicians, nurses and patients assessed acceptability. Setting Nurse-led clinics were established in 9 centres in the ProtecT trial and compared with 3 non-ProtecT urology centres elsewhere in UK. Participants Within ProtecT, 22 men receiving AM nurse-led care were interviewed about experiences of care; 11 urologists and 23 research nurses delivering ProtecT trial care completed a questionnaire about its acceptability; 20 men managed in urology clinics elsewhere in the UK were interviewed about models of AS/AM care; 12 urologists and three specialist nurses working in these clinics were also interviewed about management of AS/AM. Results Nurse-led care was commended by ProtecT trial participants, who valued the flexibility, accessibility and continuity of the service and felt confident about the quality of care. ProtecT consultant urologists and nurses also rated it highly, identifying continuity of care and resource savings as key attributes. Clinicians and patients outside the ProtecT trial believed that nurse-led care could relieve pressure on urology clinics without compromising patient care. Conclusions The ProtecT AM nurse-led model of care was acceptable to men with localised prostate cancer and clinical specialists in urology. The protocol is available for implementation; we aim to evaluate its impact on routine clinical practice. Trial registration numbers NCT02044172; ISRCTN20141297.

Inclusion of Ethnic Minorities in Telehealth Trials for Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Systematic Review Examining Prevalence and Language Issues

Background Type 2 diabetes is common, on the rise, and disproportionately affects ethnic minority groups. Telehealth interventions may mitigate diabetes-related complications, but might under-recruit or even exclude ethnic minorities, in part because of English language requirements. The under-representation of minority patients in trials could threaten the generalizability of the findings, whereby the patients who might stand to benefit most from such interventions are not being included in their evaluation. Objective The aims of this systematic review are twofold: (1) to assess the reporting and prevalence of ethnic minorities in published telehealth trials for type 2 diabetes, including identifying trial features associated with successful patient recruitment; and (2) to determine the proportion of such trials that report English language proficiency as an inclusion/exclusion criterion, including how and why they do so. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with type 2 diabetes in Western, English-speaking countries that included telehealth interventions targeting diabetes as a primary condition, and those that did not specifically recruit minority groups will be included. Search strategies were devised for indexed and keyword terms capturing type 2 diabetes, telehealth/health technology, and RCTs in English language publications from 2000 to July 2015 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Reference lists of included studies will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion criteria, mediated by a third reviewer if consensus cannot be reached. Data extracted from included studies will be checked by a second reviewer and will be summarized using narrative synthesis. Results This research is in progress, with findings expected by Spring 2016. Conclusions This review will address research reporting and recruitment practices of ethnic minorities in telehealth RCTs for type 2 diabetes. Prevalence estimates will elucidate generalizability of existing research, with implications for researchers, health professionals, and policy makers. Identifying trial or intervention features that appear to facilitate ethnic minority recruitment, as well as language barriers that impede it might suggest ways to improve recruitment in future trials. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42015024899; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015024899 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6fUMqbJ0f).

Abstract P4-11-07: Comparison of multiparameter tests in the UK OPTIMA-Prelim trial

Introduction All published adjuvant chemotherapy trials in breast cancer have made the assumption that the proportional benefits of chemotherapy apply uniformly across molecular subgroups. However, it can be argued that chemotherapy effectiveness for luminal A breast cancer is low in comparison to other subtypes irrespective of tumour stage. A logical extension of this argument is that novel multiparametric tests that use biological features of breast cancers to assess risk may also inform chemotherapy benefit in luminal cancers. The OPTIMA trial is a multi-centre, partially blinded, randomised clinical trial with a non-inferiority endpoint, and an adaptive design, to compare standard treatment (chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy) with multi-parameter test-guided treatment allocation to either chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. OPTIMA-prelim aimed to compare the predicted risk stratification, sub-type classification and cost effectiveness of different multiparameter tests performed on the same patient population. Methods Over 20 months of recruitment 285 patients were randomised to OPTIMA-prelim. Tissue was collected centrally, ER and HER2 status confirmed and samples provided for testing with Oncotype DX™, Prosigna™ (PAM50), Mammaprint™, Mammatyper™, IHC4-AQUA and IHC4 using conventional biomarkers. Sub-type classification was provided by Blueprint™, Mammatyper™ and Prosigna™. Each test was performed at central diagnostic laboratories (OncotypeDx, Mammaprint/Blueprint, Mammatyper) or in a central laboratory (Prosigna™/IHC4) strictly according to GLP practices. Results Samples from 181 patients randomised by January 2014 were tested and data analysed for this study. Patients were categorised as low/intermediate or high risk using predetermined cut-offs for each test. Oncotype DX predicted a proportion of low-risk tumours (79%; 95% CI 73-85%) similar to that predicted as either low or intermediate risk using Prosigna ROR_P (71%; 95% CI 64-78%) and IHC4 (69%; 95% CI 62-76%), whilst MammaPrint identified the fewest low-risk tumours (59%; 95% CI 52-66%). Strikingly, a comparison between tests showed modest agreement between tests when dichotomising results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Disagreement between different tests, in assigning individual tumours to risk categories, is not uncommon; for the four tests [Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna ROR_P (low/int) and IHC4 (low/int)], only 71 (39%) tumours were classified as low/intermediate risk for all four tests and only 17 (9%) tumours were high risk for all four tests, 93 (52%) tumours were assigned to different risk categories by different tests. Similarly all three subtypes tests (Blueprint/Prosigna/Mammatyper) each assigned 59% of tumors to luminal A subtype but only 70% of these cases were classified as luminal A by all three assays. Conclusion Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with luminal breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorisation or indeed subtype information. Acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project 10/34/01). The opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or Department of Health. Citation Format: John MS Bartlett, Robert C Stein, Jane Bayani, Andrea Marshall, Janet A Dunn, Amy F Campbell, Carrie Cunningham, Monika Sobol, Peter Hall, Leila Rooshenas, Adrienne Morgan, Christopher Poole, Sarah E Pinder, David A Cameron, Nigel Stallard, Jenny Donovan, Christopher McCabe, Luke Hughes-Davies, Andreas Makris, on Behalf of the OPTIMA Trial Management Group. Comparison of multiparameter tests in the UK OPTIMA-Prelim trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-07.

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment.

Objectives To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. Study Design and Setting Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. Results One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. Conclusions The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation.

Response to a pilot single-centre randomized trial: the PATRASTOM trial

Dear Editor, We read the paper on the PATRASTOM pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) [1] with great interest. Prevention of parastomal hernia (PSH) is an area that needs high-quality evidence. Good pretrial work, such as pilot studies, has an important role in the design of definitive multicentre trials. We have several methodological concerns, however, that limit the findings and interpretation of this study. Pilot studies aim to test the feasibility, reliability and validity of the proposed design of the main RCT [2]. As such, pilot RCTs are designed to establish whether, for example, it is possible to recruit and randomize patients, and whether the preferred end-points in the main trial can be collected with acceptable completeness [3]. They provide the opportunity to ‘test drive’ the components of the main RCT; published reports are largely descriptive and contain detailed methodological information. Such studies may describe information needed to calculate the sample size required for the main trial (e.g. standard deviation of an outcome; frequency of missing outcome data) but should not estimate the effect size (any estimate would be very imprecise). In view of these important considerations, what can be taken from the PATRASTOM study? The available recruitment data show that randomization was acceptable to patients and to surgeons, with 75 of 92 eligible patients (91%) recruited. A substantial proportion of participants (n = 15, 20%), however, were later excluded because intra-operative findings made the participant ineligible. This observation suggests that in the main trial it might be preferable to randomize participants in the operating room when eligibility can be known definitively; excluding randomized participants runs the risk of introducing bias. Secondly, PATRASTOM used the incidence of PSH as a primary endpoint, which was assessed intra-operatively at the time of ileostomy closure. It appears, however, that the proposed main trial will investigate end-stomas. Therefore, piloting this former outcome during closure of a loop ileostomy is not relevant to the main trial. Furthermore, whilst PATRASTROM assessed quality of life as a secondary end-point using two established measures, neither measure has been validated in the patient population of interest. The main study will need to implement methods for detecting PSH (e.g. computed tomography and/or symptom assessment), yet these methods have not been piloted in the current study. To conclude, PATRASTOM produced early data on safety of the interventions, but we believe that there were missed opportunities to obtain important information in this ‘pilot’ study. We also note that the original trial registration did not refer to the ‘pilot’ nature of the study [4]. The CIPHER (Cohort study to Investigate the prevention of Parastomal HERnia) study will soon open in the UK, and aims to address some of these issues. It includes the development of a measure for assessing symptoms of PSH and will describe key components of stoma formation. This nonrandomized cohort study will collect information about these components to investigate which surgical factors are prognostic for the development of PSH. It is hoped that the CIPHER study will eventually inform the optimal design of a trial evaluating interventions to prevent PSH.

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework.

BackgroundResearch has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment.MethodsEight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs.ResultsThe eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR – Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received.ConclusionsThe SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital

Objectives To examine the design and findings of recruitment studies in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with an unscheduled hospital admission (UHA), to consider how to optimise recruitment in future RCTs of this nature. Design Studies within the ORRCA database (Online Resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical TriAls; www.orrca.org.uk) that reported on recruitment to RCTs involving UHAs in patients >18 years were included. Extracted data included trial clinical details, and the rationale and main findings of the recruitment study. Results Of 3114 articles populating ORRCA, 39 recruitment studies were eligible, focusing on 68 real and 13 hypothetical host RCTs. Four studies were prospectively planned investigations of recruitment interventions, one of which was a nested RCT. Most recruitment papers were reports of recruitment experiences from one or more ‘real’ RCTs (n=24) or studies using hypothetical RCTs (n=11). Rationales for conducting recruitment studies included limited time for informed consent (IC) and patients being too unwell to provide IC. Methods to optimise recruitment included providing patients with trial information in the prehospital setting, technology to allow recruiters to cover multiple sites, screening logs to uncover recruitment barriers, and verbal rather than written information and consent. Conclusion There is a paucity of high-quality research into recruitment in RCTs involving UHAs with only one nested randomised study evaluating a recruitment intervention. Among the remaining studies, methods to optimise recruitment focused on how to improve information provision in the prehospital setting and use of screening logs. Future research in this setting should focus on the prospective evaluation of the well-developed interventions to optimise recruitment.

Factors influencing parents' decision-making when sending children with respiratory tract infections to nursery

BACKGROUND Many families rely on formal day care provision, which can be problematic when children are unwell. Attendance in these circumstances may impact on the transmission of infections in both day care and the wider community. METHODS Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate how parents make decisions about nursery care when children are unwell. Topics for discussion included: illness attitudes, current practice during childhood illness and potential nursery policy changes that could affect decision-making. RESULTS A combination of illness perceptions and external factors affected decision-making. Parents: (i) considered the severity of respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms differently, and stated that while most other contagious illnesses required nursery exclusion, coughs/colds did not; (ii) said decisions were not solely based on nursery policy, but on practical challenges such as work absences, financial penalties and alternative care availability; (iii) identified modifiable nursery policy factors that could potentially help parents keep unwell children at home, potentially reducing transmission of infectious illness. CONCLUSIONS Decision-making is a complex interaction between the childs illness, personal circumstance and nursery policy. Improving our understanding of the modifiable aspects of nursery policies and the extent to which these factors affect decision-making could inform the design and implementation of interventions to reduce the transmission of infectious illness and the associated burden on NHS services.

Equipoise in action: a qualitative investigation across six pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Background Research indicates that clinical recruiters often face conflict between their knowledge of clinical equipoise underpinning the RCT, and their instincts for/against eligible patients’ suitability for particular trial interventions. Little is known about whether or how equipoise is conveyed during recruitment practice. We investigated how equipoise was communicated by clinicians in recruitment consultations across six RCTs.