Serge Gottot

Informed consent in clinical research in France: assessment and factors associated with therapeutic misconception

Background: Informed consent in clinical research is mandated throughout the world. Both patient subjects and investigators are required to understand and accept the distinction between research and treatment. Aim: To document the extent and to identify factors associated with therapeutic misconception in a population of patient subjects or parent proxies recruited from a variety of multicentre trials (parent studies). Patients and methods: The study comprised two phases: the development of a questionnaire to assess the quality of informed consent and a survey of patient subjects based on this questionnaire. Results: A total of 303 patient subjects or parent proxies were contacted and 279 questionnaires were analysed. The median age was 49.5 years, sex ratio was 1 and 61% of respondents were professionally active. Overall memorisation of the oral or written communication of informed consent was good (69–97%), and satisfaction with the process was around 70%. Therapeutic misconception was present in 70% of respondents, who expected to receive better care and ignored the consequence of randomisation and treatment comparisons. This was positively associated with the acuteness and severity of the disease. Conclusion: The authors suggest that the risk of therapeutic misconception be specifically addressed in consent forms as an educational tool for both patients and investigators.

Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

Background Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliability. Studies showing poor agreement among reviewers supported this possibility but usually focused on reviewers’ scores and failed to investigate reasons for disagreement. Here, our goal was to determine how reviewers rate applications, by investigating reviewer practices and grant assessment criteria. Methods and Findings We first collected and analyzed a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals and assessment guidelines, from which we created an overall typology of assessment criteria comprising nine domains relevance to the call for proposals, usefulness, originality, innovativeness, methodology, feasibility, funding, ethical aspects, and writing of the grant application. We then performed a qualitative study of reviewer practices, particularly regarding the use of assessment criteria, among reviewers of the French Academic Hospital Research Grant Agencies (Programmes Hospitaliers de Recherche Clinique, PHRCs). Semi-structured interviews and observation sessions were conducted. Both the time spent assessing each grant application and the assessment methods varied across reviewers. The assessment criteria recommended by the PHRCs were listed by all reviewers as frequently evaluated and useful. However, use of the PHRC criteria was subjective and varied across reviewers. Some reviewers gave the same weight to each assessment criterion, whereas others considered originality to be the most important criterion (12/34), followed by methodology (10/34) and feasibility (4/34). Conceivably, this variability might adversely affect the reliability of the review process, and studies evaluating this hypothesis would be of interest. Conclusions Variability across reviewers may result in mistrust among grant applicants about the review process. Consequently, ensuring transparency is of the utmost importance. Consistency in the review process could also be improved by providing common definitions for each assessment criterion and uniform requirements for grant application submissions. Further research is needed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of these measures.

Methodology used in comparative studies assessing programmes of transition from paediatrics to adult care programmes: a systematic review

Objective To explore the methodologies employed in studies assessing transition of care interventions, with the aim of defining goals for the improvement of future studies. Design Systematic review of comparative studies assessing transition to adult care interventions for young people with chronic conditions. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies 2 reviewers screened comparative studies with experimental and quasi-experimental designs, published or registered before July 2015. Eligible studies evaluate transition interventions at least in part after transfer to adult care of young people with chronic conditions with at least one outcome assessed quantitatively. Results 39 studies were reviewed, 26/39 (67%) published their final results and 13/39 (33%) were in progress. In 9 studies (9/39, 23%) comparisons were made between preintervention and postintervention in a single group. Randomised control groups were used in 9/39 (23%) studies. 2 (2/39, 5%) reported blinding strategies. Use of validated questionnaires was reported in 28% (11/39) of studies. In terms of reporting in published studies 15/26 (58%) did not report age at transfer, and 6/26 (23%) did not report the time of collection of each outcome. Conclusions Few evaluative studies exist and their level of methodological quality is variable. The complexity of interventions, multiplicity of outcomes, difficulty of blinding and the small groups of patients have consequences on concluding on the effectiveness of interventions. The evaluation of the transition interventions requires an appropriate and common methodology which will provide access to a better level of evidence. We identified areas for improvement in terms of randomisation, recruitment and external validity, blinding, measurement validity, standardised assessment and reporting. Improvements will increase our capacity to determine effective interventions for transition care.

Professional’s Perspectives on Care Management of Young People with Perinatally Acquired HIV during Transition: A Qualitative Study in Adult Care Setting

Background Increasing numbers of young people with perinatally acquired HIV are surviving to adulthood. When they come of age, they leave pediatric services in which they were followed and have to be transferred to the adult health care system. Difficulties in adaptation to adult care and the numbers of young people lost to follow up after transfer to adult care have been reported. This transition phase and their retention in adult care are crucial in maintaining the clinical status of these young with HIV in adulthood. Our study aimed to explore how HIV professionals working in adult care perceive and adapt their practices to young people in transition. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 health and social services professionals in hospitals or patient associations in France. A thematic analysis was conducted. Results Adult care professionals were found to be making a distinction between these young people and their patients who were infected during adulthood. On the basis of the healthcare teams’ experience, a simplified categorization of these young people into four levels can be used: those “who have everything good”; those who have some deficiencies that must be addressed; those “who have everything bad”; and those lost to follow up. Professionals interviewed highlighted the difficulties they encountered with young people in transition. Three types of problematic situations were identified: problems of acceptance of the disease; communication problems; and problems of disorientation in the new care environment. Conclusions Despite the lack of specific training or national policy recommendations for the integration of young people with perinatally acquired HIV into adult services, all the adult healthcare teams interviewed tried to adapt their practice to this population. The results suggested that professional involvement during transition should depend on the characteristics of the patient, not be limited to a single transition model and that a dedicated structure for transition care is not appropriate for all young people.

Identifying potential indicators to measure the outcome of translational cancer research: a mixed methods approach

BackgroundIn a context where there is an increasing demand to evaluate the outcome of bio-medical research, our work aims to develop a set of indicators to measure the impact of translational cancer research. The objective of our study was to explore the scope and issues of translational research relevant to evaluation, explore the views of researchers on the evaluation of oncological translational research, and select indicators measuring the outcomes and outputs of translational research in oncology by consensus.MethodsSemi-structured interviews amongst 23 researchers involved in translational cancer research were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. A two-round modified Delphi survey of 35 participants with similar characteristics was then performed followed by a physical meeting. Participants rated the feasibility and validity of 60 indicators. The physical meeting was held to discuss the methodology of the new indicators.ResultsThe main themes emerging from the interviews included a common definition for translational research but disagreements about the exact scope and limits of this research, the importance of multidisciplinarity and collaboration for the success of translational research, the disadvantages that translational research faces in current evaluation systems, the relative lack of pertinence of existing indicators, and propositions to measure translational cancer research in terms of clinical applications and patient outcomes. A total of 35 participants took part in the first round survey and 12 in the second round. The two-round survey helped us select a set of 18 indicators, including four that seemed to be particularly adapted to measure translational cancer research impact on health service research (number of biomarkers identified, generation of clinical guidelines, citation of research in clinical guidelines, and citation of research in public health guidelines). The feedback from participants helped refine the methodology and definition of indicators not commonly used.ConclusionIndicators need to be accepted by stakeholders under evaluation. This study helped the selection and refinement of indicators considered as the most relevant by researchers in translational cancer research. The feasibility and validity of those indicators will be tested in a scientometric study.