Sangeetha Paramasivan

Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials

BackgroundRecruitment of sufficient participants in an efficient manner is still widely acknowledged to be a major challenge to the mounting and completion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Few recruitment interventions have involved staff undertaking recruitment. This study aimed i) to understand the recruitment process from the perspective of recruiters actively recruiting RCT participants in six pragmatic RCTs, and ii) to identify opportunities for interventions to improve recruitment.MethodsInterviews were undertaken with 72 individuals (32 doctors or RCT Chief investigators (CIs); 40 nurses/other health professionals) who were actively recruiting participants in six RCTs to explore their experiences of recruitment. The RCTs varied in scale, duration, and clinical contexts. Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using qualitative content and thematic analytic methods derived from grounded theory. For this analysis, data were systematically extracted from each RCT and synthesised across all six RCTs to produce a detailed and nuanced understanding of the recruitment process from the perspectives of the recruiters.ResultsRecruiters readily identified organisational difficulties, fewer than expected eligible patients, and patients’ treatment preferences as the key barriers to recruitment. As they described their experiences of recruitment, several previously hidden issues related to their roles as researchers and clinicians emerged, imbued with discomfort and emotion. The synthesis across the RCTs showed that doctors were uncomfortable about aspects of patient eligibility and the effectiveness of interventions, whereas nurses were anxious about approaching potential RCT participants and conflicts between the research and their clinical responsibilities. Recruiters seemed unaware that their views contributed to recruitment difficulties. Their views were not known to RCT CIs. Training and support needs were identified for both groups of staff.ConclusionsThe synthesis showed that recruitment to these RCTs was a complex and fragile process. Clear obstacles were identified but hidden challenges related to recruiters’ roles undermined recruitment, unbeknown to RCT CIs. Qualitative research can elicit and identify the hidden challenges. Training and support are then needed for recruiters to become more comfortable with the design and principles of RCTs, so that they can engage more openly with potentially eligible participants and create a more resilient recruitment process.

The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials

Objective The aim of the study was to investigate how doctors considered and experienced the concept of equipoise while recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study Design and Setting In-depth interviews with 32 doctors in six publicly funded pragmatic RCTs explored their perceptions of equipoise as they undertook RCT recruitment. The RCTs varied in size, duration, type of complex intervention, and clinical specialties. Interview data were analyzed using qualitative content and thematic analytical methods derived from grounded theory and synthesized across six RCTs. Results All six RCTs suffered from poor recruitment. Doctors wanted to gather robust evidence but experienced considerable discomfort and emotion in relation to their clinical instincts and concerns about patient eligibility and safety. Although they relied on a sense of community equipoise to justify participation, most acknowledged having “hunches” about particular treatments and patients, some of which undermined recruitment. Surgeons experienced these issues most intensely. Training and support promoted greater confidence in equipoise and improved engagement and recruitment. Conclusion Recruitment to RCTs is a fragile process and difficult for doctors intellectually and emotionally. Training and support can enable most doctors to become comfortable with key RCT concepts including equipoise, uncertainty, patient eligibility, and randomization, promoting a more resilient recruitment process in partnership with patients.

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

BackgroundPatients’ 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.MethodsAudio-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.ResultsRecruiters 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.ConclusionsRecruiters 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.Trial registrationProtecT RCT: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. The other two trials are registered but have asked to be anonymized.

A simple technique to identify key recruitment issues in randomised controlled trials: Q-QAT - quanti-qualitative appointment timing

BackgroundRecruitment to pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is acknowledged to be difficult, and few interventions have proved to be effective. Previous qualitative research has consistently revealed that recruiters provide imbalanced information about RCT treatments. However, qualitative research can be time-consuming to apply. Within a programme of research to optimise recruitment and informed consent in challenging RCTs, we developed a simple technique, Q-QAT (Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing), to systematically investigate and quantify the imbalance to help identify and address recruitment difficulties.MethodsThe Q-QAT technique comprised: 1) quantification of time spent discussing the RCT and its treatments using transcripts of audio-recorded recruitment appointments, 2) targeted qualitative research to understand the obstacles to recruitment and 3) feedback to recruiters on opportunities for improvement. This was applied to two RCTs with different clinical contexts and recruitment processes. Comparisons were made across clinical centres, recruiters and specialties.ResultsIn both RCTs, the Q-QAT technique first identified considerable variations in the time spent by recruiters discussing the RCT and its treatments. The patterns emerging from this initial quantification of recruitment appointments then enabled targeted qualitative research to understand the issues and make suggestions to improve recruitment. In RCT1, presentation of the treatments was balanced, but little time was devoted to describing the RCT. Qualitative research revealed patients would have considered participation, but lacked awareness of the RCT. In RCT2, the balance of treatment presentation varied by specialists and centres. Qualitative research revealed difficulties with equipoise and confidence among recruiters presenting the RCT. The quantitative and qualitative findings were well-received by recruiters and opportunities to improve information provision were discussed. A blind coding exercise across three researchers led to the development of guidelines that can be used to apply the Q-QAT technique to other difficult RCTs.ConclusionThe Q-QAT technique was easy to apply and rapidly identified obstacles to recruitment that could be understood through targeted qualitative research and addressed through feedback. The technique’s combination of quantitative and qualitative findings enabled the presentation of a holistic picture of recruitment challenges and added credibility to the feedback process.Note: both RCTs in this manuscript asked to be anonymised, so no trial registration details are provided.

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.

The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual: A qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

BackgroundChallenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.ResultsTwenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.ConclusionsThis study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

A Contact-Based Intervention for People Recently Discharged from Inpatient Psychiatric Care: A Pilot Study

People recently discharged from inpatient psychiatric care are at high risk of suicide and self-harm, with 6% of all suicides in England occurring in the 3 months after discharge. There is some evidence from a randomized trial carried out in the United States in the 1960s–70s that supportive letters sent by psychiatrists to high-risk patients in the period following hospital discharge resulted in a reduction in suicide. The aim of the current pilot study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a similar trial, but in a broader group of psychiatric discharges, in the context of present day UK clinical practice. The intervention was piloted on 3 psychiatric inpatient wards in southwest England. On 2 wards a series of 8 letters were sent to patients over the 12 months after discharge and 6 letters were sent from the third ward over a 6 month period. A total of 102 patients discharged from the wards received at least 1 letter, but only 45 (44.1%) received the full series of letters. The main reasons for drop-out were patient opt-out (n = 24) or readmission (n = 26). In the context of a policy of intensive follow-up post-discharge, qualitative interviews with service users showed that most already felt adequately supported and the intervention added little to this. Those interviewed felt that it was possible that the intervention might benefit people new to or with little follow-up from mental health services but that fewer letters should be mailed.

Adaptation of the By‐Band randomized clinical trial to By‐Band‐Sleeve to include a new intervention and maintain relevance of the study to practice

Recruitment into surgical RCTs can be threatened if new interventions available outside the trial compete with those being evaluated. Adapting the trial to include the new intervention may overcome this issue, yet this is not often done in surgery. This paper describes the challenges, rationale and methods for adapting an RCT to include a new intervention.

Evaluating best practice in informed consent discussions: a new method of evaluating information provision and patient understanding during trial recruitment consultations

Background Use of discussion and questioning is an effective supplement to written information provision during trial recruitment. Current evaluations of recruitment consultations monitor information delivered by recruiters, ignoring evidence of patient understanding/misunderstanding. This study a) developed a method of evaluating the quality of information provision and understanding during informed consent consultations for RCT recruitment (QUICC-RCT) that took patient responses into account and b) investigated the feasibility of applying it as a tool to evaluate informed consent (IC) in recruitment consultations.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: Development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)

BackgroundInformed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding.MethodsPublished guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above.ResultsDevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained.ConclusionsThe DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.