Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated. Methods and findings We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate. Conclusions Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403., Author(s): Annabelle South 1,*, Nalinie Joharatnam-Hogan 1, Cara Purvis 1, Elizabeth C. James 1, Carlos Diaz-Montana 1, William J. Cragg 2, Conor Tweed 1, Archie Macnair 1, Matthew R. Sydes [...]

Plain English summary: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future. Background: Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. Methods: RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference. Results: Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice. Conclusions: PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]