Parents’ Agendas in Paediatric Clinical Trial Recruitment Are Different from Researchers’ and Often Remain Unvoiced: A Qualitative Study

Ensuring parents make an informed decision about their child’s participation in a clinical trial is a challenge for practitioners as a parent’s comprehension of a trial may differ from that intended by the practitioners responsible for recruitment. We explored what issues parents consider important when making a decision about participation in a paediatric clinical trial and their comprehension of these issues to inform future recruitment practice. This qualitative interview and observational study examined recruitment in four placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised clinical trials of medicines for children. Audio-recorded trial recruitment discussions between practitioners and parents (N = 41) were matched with semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 41). When making a decision about trial entry parents considered clinical benefit, child safety, practicalities of participation, research for the common good, access to medication and randomisation. Within these prioritised issues parents had specific misunderstandings, which had the potential to influence their decisions. While parents had many questions and concerns about trial participation which influenced their decision-making, they rarely voiced these during discussions about the trials with practitioners. Those involved in the recruitment of children to clinical trials need to be aware of parents’ priorities and the sorts of misunderstandings that can arise with parents. Providing trial information that is tailored to what parents consider important in making a decision about a clinical trial may improve recruitment practice and ultimately benefit evidence-based paediatric medicine.     

HARD PATERNALISM,FAIRNESS AND CLINICAL RESEARCH: WHY NOT?

Jansen and Wall suggest a new way of defending hard paternalism in clinical research. They argue that non‐therapeutic research exposing people to more than minimal risk should be banned on egalitarian grounds: in preventing poor decision‐makers from making bad decisions, we will promote equality of welfare. We argue that their proposal is flawed for four reasons. First, the idea of poor decision‐makers is much more problematic than Jansen and Wall allow. Second, pace Jansen and Wall, it may be practicable for regulators to uncover the values that a potential research participant holds when agreeing to enter a research project, so their claim that we must ban such research projects for all if we are to ban them for poor decision‐makers looks to be unmotivated. Third, there seem to be cases where the liberty to enter the sort of research project Jansen and Wall discuss is morally weighty, and arguably should outweigh concerns of egalitarian distribution. Fourth, banning certain types of research, which seem on the face of it to offer an unfavourable risk‐benefit ratio, would have unwelcome consequences for all clinical research, which Jansen and Wall do not recognize.     

Genetic Testing for Huntington's Disease: How Is the Decision Taken?

Research on genetic decision-making normally constructs the decision as an opportunity for choice. However, minimal research investigates how these decisions are taken and whether those who live with genetic risk perceive the test as an opportunity for choice. Employing semistructured interviews with at-risk persons, this study explored decisions about genetic testing for Huntington's disease (HD)--a fatal genetic disorder. A primary aim was to understand how test decisions were perceived. Qualitative data analysis revealed four decision pathways: (1) no decision to be made, (2) constrained decisions, (3) reevaluating the decision, and (4) indicators of HD. Contrary to the rational, "information-processor" approach to decision making, some test decisions were immediate and automatic. These stories challenged the conventional construction of a genetic-test decision as an opportunity for choice. Participant narratives suggested that this construction may be inadequate, at least for some people who live with genetic risk. Test decisions were sometimes constrained by perceived responsibility to other family members, notably offspring. For others at risk, the test decision was a dynamic process of critical thought and evaluation. Finally, behaviors that could be symptoms of HD were the catalyst for testing.     

The Human Factor: Behavioral and Neural Correlates of Humanized Perception in Moral Decision Making

The extent to which people regard others as full-blown individuals with mental states (“humanization”) seems crucial for their prosocial motivation towards them. Previous research has shown that decisions about moral dilemmas in which one person can be sacrificed to save multiple others do not consistently follow utilitarian principles. We hypothesized that this behavior can be explained by the potential victim’s perceived humanness and an ensuing increase in vicarious emotions and emotional conflict during decision making. Using fMRI, we assessed neural activity underlying moral decisions that affected fictitious persons that had or had not been experimentally humanized. In implicit priming trials, participants either engaged in mentalizing about these persons (Humanized condition) or not (Neutral condition). In subsequent moral dilemmas, participants had to decide about sacrificing these persons’ lives in order to save the lives of numerous others. Humanized persons were sacrificed less often, and the activation pattern during decisions about them indicated increased negative affect, emotional conflict, vicarious emotions, and behavioral control (pgACC/mOFC, anterior insula/IFG, aMCC and precuneus/PCC). Besides, we found enhanced effective connectivity between aMCC and anterior insula, which suggests increased emotion regulation during decisions affecting humanized victims. These findings highlight the importance of others’ perceived humanness for prosocial behavior - with aversive affect and other-related concern when imagining harming more “human-like” persons acting against purely utilitarian decisions.     

Reconsidering paternalism in clinical research

The ethical standards that regulate clinical research have multiple rationales. Among them is the need to protect potential subjects from making imprudent decisions, which extends beyond the soft paternalistic concern to protect people from making uninformed decisions to participate in trials. This article argues that a plausible risk/benefit restriction on clinical trials is presumptively justified by hard paternalism, which in turn is supported by a deeper fairness‐based rationale. This presumptive case for hard paternalism in research is not defeated by the alleged right to participate in clinical trials, by concerns about insult or status, by the need to conduct early phase trials that promise little to no benefit to participants, or by the recognition that some potential subjects are altruistically motivated.     

Do we want more cancer patients on clinical trials If so, what are the barriers to greater accrual

It is often stated that only a small proportion of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials. This is said to be a bad thing, with calls for more trials to include more patients. Here I argue that whether or not greater accrual to clinical trials would be a good thing depends on the trials we conduct. The vast majority of clinical trials in cancer are currently early phase trials, and most do not lead to further studies even if they have encouraging results. The key metric is thus not the number of patients on clinical trials, but the number on the sort of large, randomized, Phase III trials that can be used as a basis for clinical decisions. I also address two important barriers to greater clinical trial participation. The first barrier is financial: clinical research has long been the poor cousin of basic research, with perhaps no more than a nickel in the cancer research dollar going to clinical research. The second barrier is regulatory: clinical research has become so overburdened by regulation that it takes years to initiate a trial, and dedicated staff just to deal with the paperwork once the trial starts. This not only adds significantly to the costs of clinical research, but scares many young investigators away. It has been estimated that nearly half of all US-sponsored trials are being conducted abroad, and it is plausible that excessive regulation is at least partly responsible. That statistic should serve as a wake-up call to the US clinical research community to implement the recommendations of the now decade-old report of National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Program Review Group, which largely center around simplifying trials and streamlining trial procedures.     

Gezamenlijke besluitvorming zorgt voor een betere toepassing van evidence-based medicine in de geriatrische patiënt

Evidence based medicine (EBM) is the integration of the best research evidence, clinical expertise and patient values in the decision making process for patient care. However, elderly people are often excluded from participating in scientific studies and they often have multiple morbidities, which complicates the application of EBM. Shared decision making (SDM), a process where clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and where patients are supported to consider options, to achieve appropriate treatment can help to shape EBM for this group of patients.In this article, we provide tools for finding relevant literature for the geriatric patient population and for shaping the SDM process to achieve personalized care.     

Exploring Patient Values in Medical Decision Making: A Qualitative Study

Background

Patient decisions are influenced by their personal values. However, there is a lack of clarity and attention on the concept of patient values in the clinical context despite clear emphasis on patient values in evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. The aim of the study was to explore the concept of patient values in the context of making decisions about insulin initiation among people with type 2 diabetes.

Methods and Findings

We conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28–67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, ‘treatment-specific values’, ‘life goals and philosophies’, and ‘personal and social background’, emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients’ decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).

Conclusions

This study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients’ priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.     

Uncertainty and Denial: A Resource-Rational Model of the Value of Information

Classical decision theory predicts that people should be indifferent to information that is not useful for making decisions, but this model often fails to describe human behavior. Here we investigate one such scenario, where people desire information about whether an event (the gain/loss of money) will occur even though there is no obvious decision to be made on the basis of this information. We find a curious dual trend: if information is costless, as the probability of the event increases people want the information more; if information is not costless, people''s desire for the information peaks at an intermediate probability. People also want information more as the importance of the event increases, and less as the cost of the information increases. We propose a model that explains these results, based on the assumption that people have limited cognitive resources and obtain information about which events will occur so they can determine whether to expend effort planning for them.     

Social values and scientific evidence: the case of the HPV vaccines

Several have argued that the aims of scientific research are not always independent of social and ethical values. Yet this is often assumed only to have implications for decisions about what is studied, or which research projects are funded, and not for methodological decisions or standards of evidence. Using the case of the recently developed HPV vaccines, we argue that the social aims of research can also play important roles in justifying decisions about (1) how research problems are defined in drug development, (2) evidentiary standards used in testing drug “success”, and (3) clinical trial methodology. As a result, attending to the social aims at stake in particular research contexts will produce more rational methodological decisions as well as more socially relevant science.     

Group decision making in fission-fusion societies: evidence from two-field experiments in Bechstein's bats

Group decisions are required when group coordination is beneficial, but individuals can choose between alternatives. Despite the increased interest in animal group decision making, there is a lack of experimental field studies that investigate how animals with conflicting information make group decisions. In particular, no field studies have considered the influence of fission-fusion behaviour (temporary splitting into subgroups) on group decisions. We studied group decision making in two wild Bechstein's bat colonies, which are fission-fusion societies of stable individual composition. Since they frequently switch communal roosts, colony members must regularly make group decisions over where to roost. In the two-field experiments, we provided marked individuals with conflicting information about the suitability of potential roosts. We investigated whether conflicting information led to group decisions that followed a 'unanimous' or a 'majority' rule, or increased colony fission. Individual behaviour suggests that bats considered both their own information and the behaviour of others when deciding where to roost. Group decisions about communal roosts reflected the information available to a majority of the bats roosting together, but conflicting information led to an increased fission in one colony. Our results suggest that fission-fusion societies allow individuals to avoid majority decisions that are not in their favour.     

In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: Systematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews-and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers to a clinical research question-some commentators question whether the sample size calculation for an individual trial still matters. Others point out that small trials can still be potentially misleading.     

Consent for participating in clinical trials ‐ Is it really informed?

The article explores the challenges of ensuring voluntary and informed consent which is obtained from potential research subjects in the north‐eastern part of Romania. This study is one of the first empirical papers of this nature in Romania. The study used a quantitative survey design using the adapted Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) questionnaire. The target population consisted of 100 adult persons who voluntarily enrolled in clinical trials. The informed consent form must contain details regarding the potential risks and benefits, the aim of the clinical trial, study design, confidentiality, insurance and contact details in case of additional questions. Our study confirmed that although all required information was included in the ICF, few clinical trial participants truly understood it. We also found that the most important predictive factor for a good subjective and objective understanding of the clinical trial was the level of education. Our study suggests that researchers should consider putting more effort in order to help clinical trials participants achieve a better understanding of the informed consent. In this way they will ensure that participants’ decision‐making is meaningful and that their interests are protected.     

Evidence-Based Medicine,Clinical Practice Guidelines,and Common Sense in the Management of Osteoporosis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and clinical judgment in the management of osteoporosis.MethodsA review was conducted of the English-language literature on the origins and applications of RCTs, CPGs, evidence-based medicine, and clinical judgment in the management of osteoporosis.ResultsEvidence-based medicine is use of the currently available best evidence in making clinical decisions for individual patients. CPGs are recommendations for making clinical decisions based on research evidence, sometimes with consideration of expert opinion, health care policy, and costs of care. The highest levels of medical evidence are usually thought to be RCTs and meta-analyses of high-quality RCTs. Although it is desirable and appropriate for clinicians to consider research evidence from RCTs and recommendations presented in CPGs in making clinical decisions, other factors—such as patient preference, comorbidities, affordability, and availability of care—are important for the actual implementation of evidence-based medicine.ConclusionDecisions about who to treat, which drug to use, how best to monitor, and how long to treat require clinical skills in addition to knowledge of medical research. The necessity of integrating common sense and clinical judgment is highlighted by the fact that many patients treated for osteoporosis in clinical practice would not qualify for participation in the pivotal clinical trials that demonstrated efficacy and safety of the drugs used to treat them. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:573-579)     

Poor Decision Making Is a Consequence of Cognitive Decline among Older Persons without Alzheimer's Disease or Mild Cognitive Impairment

Objective

Decision making is an important determinant of health and well-being across the lifespan but is critical in aging, when many influential decisions are made just as cognitive function declines. Increasing evidence suggests that older adults, even those without dementia, often make poor decisions and are selectively vulnerable to scams. To date, however, the factors associated with poor decision making in old age are unknown. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that poor decision making is a consequence of cognitive decline among older persons without Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment.

Methods

Participants were 420 non-demented persons from the Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal, clinical-pathologic cohort study of aging in the Chicago metropolitan area. All underwent repeated cognitive evaluations and subsequently completed assessments of decision making and susceptibility to scams. Decision making was measured using 12 items from a previously established performance-based measure and a self-report measure of susceptibility to scams.

Results

Cognitive function data were collected over an average of 5.5 years prior to the decision making assessment. Regression analyses were used to examine whether the prior rate of cognitive decline predicted the level of decision making and susceptibility to scams; analyses controlled for age, sex, education, and starting level of cognition. Among 420 persons without dementia, more rapid cognitive decline predicted poorer decision making and increased susceptibility to scams (p’s<0.001). Further, the relations between cognitive decline, decision making and scams persisted in analyses restricted to persons without any cognitive impairment (i.e., no dementia or even mild cognitive impairment).

Conclusions

Poor decision making is a consequence of cognitive decline among older persons without Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment, those widely considered “cognitively healthy.” These findings suggest that even very subtle age-related changes in cognition have detrimental effects on judgment.     

The number needed to treat: a clinically useful nomogram in its proper context.

The number needed to treat is a meaningful way of expressing the benefit of an active treatment over a control. It can be used either for summarising the results of a therapeutic trial or for medical decision making about an individual patient, but its use at the bedside has been impeded by the need for time consuming calculations. A nomogram has therefore been devised that will greatly simplify the calculations. Since calculations are now easy, the number needed to treat can be used to access the value of several interventions, although it does have its limitations. In particular it should not be used when it is not known whether the relative risk reduction associated with an intervention is constant for all levels of risk, or for periods of time longer than that studied in the original trials.     

Self-help materials for the prevention of smoking relapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

In clinical trials in childhood asthma, outcomes reflecting short-term disease activity are frequently measured, whilst functional status, quality of life (QoL), and long-term treatment effects are rarely assessed. There is also non-uniformity across studies in the selection and measurement of outcomes within these domains. The development of a core outcome set has the potential to reduce heterogeneity between trials, lead to research that is more likely to have measured relevant outcomes, and enhance the value of evidence synthesis by reducing the risk of outcome reporting bias and ensuring that all trials contribute usable information.

Methods

Paediatricians and specialist nurses, identified through the British Paediatric Respiratory Society, completed a two-round Delphi survey. Separate cohorts of parents of children younger than 18?years, recruited in clinics, participated in each round. Young people with asthma, aged at least 13?years, participated in the first round. Outcomes were identified separately for preschool and school-aged children. We identified outcomes considered important in routine clinical assessment by clinicians and parents/young people. In round 1, 46 clinicians suggested outcomes they considered important when deciding whether to adjust a child??s asthma therapy regime, and 49 parents/young people were asked, using open questions, how they judged whether their child??s (for young people, their own) asthma therapy was appropriate. Two researchers independently classified responses into appropriate, corresponding outcomes. In round 2, 43 clinicians and 50 parents scored, from 0?C4, the importance of each outcome suggested by at least 10?% of round 1 responders and selected the three most important.

Results

The most important outcomes, when making shared decisions about regular therapies for school-aged and preschool children with asthma, were daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality. Results from parents and clinicians were generally concordant, but parents placed more emphasis on long-term treatment effects.

Conclusions

We have developed a methodology to identify outcomes of most relevance to clinicians, parents, and young people when evaluating regularly administered therapies for asthma. Daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality are particularly important outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of regular therapies for children with asthma.     

A surplus of positive trials: weighing biases and reconsidering equipoise

In this issue, Fries and Krishnan raise provocative new ideas to explain the surfeit of positive industry sponsored trials evaluating new drugs. They suggest that these trials were designed after so much preliminary work that they were bound to be positive (design bias) and that this violates clinical equipoise, which they characterize as an antiquated concept that should be replaced by a focus on subject autonomy in decision making and expected value for all treatments in a trial. We contend that publication bias, more than design bias, could account for the remarkably high prevalence of positive presented trials. Furthermore, even if all new drugs were efficacious, given the likelihood of type 2 errors, not all trials would be positive. We also suggest that clinical equipoise is a nuanced concept dependent on the existence of controversy about the relative value of two treatments being compared. If there were no controversy, then trials would be both unnecessary and unethical. The proposed idea of positive expected value is intriguing, but in the real world such clearly determinable values do not exist. Neither is it clear how investigators and sponsors, who are invested in the success of a proposed therapy, would (or whether they should) develop such a formula.     

Medical decision making and medical education: challenges and opportunities

The Flexner Report highlighted the importance of teaching medical students to reason about uncertainty. The science of medical decision making seeks to explain how medical judgments and decisions ought ideally to be made, how they are actually made in practice, and how they can be improved, given the constraints of medical practice. The field considers both clinical decisions by or for individual patients and societal decisions designed to benefit the public. Despite the relevance of decision making to medical practice, it currently receives little formal attention in the U.S. medical school curriculum. This article suggests three roles for medical decision making in medical education. First, basic decision science would be a valuable prerequisite to medical training. Second, several decision-related competencies would be important outcomes of medical education; these include the physician's own decision skills, the ability to guide patients in shared decisions, and knowledge of health policy decisions at the societal level. Finally, decision making could serve as a unifying principle in the design of the medical curriculum, integrating other curricular content around the need to create physicians who are competent and caring decision makers.     

Considerations for stakeholder engagement and COVID‐19 related clinical trials’ conduct in sub‐Saharan Africa

The aim of this study is to determine how stakeholder engagement can be adapted for the conduct of COVID‐19‐related clinical trials in sub‐Saharan Africa. Nine essential stakeholder engagement practices were reviewed: formative research; stakeholder engagement plan; communications and issues management plan; protocol development; informed consent process; standard of prevention for vaccine research and standard of care for treatment research; policies on trial‐related physical, psychological, financial, and/or social harms; trial accrual, follow‐up, exit trial closure and results dissemination; and post‐trial access to trial products or procedures. The norms, values, and practices of collectivist societies in Sub‐Saharan Africa and the low research literacy pose challenges to the conduct of clinical trials. Civil‐society organizations, members of community advisory boards and ethics committees, young persons, COVID‐19 survivors, researchers, government, and the private sector are assets for the implementation and translation of COVID‐19 related clinical trials. Adapting ethics guidelines to the socio‐cultural context of the region can facilitate achieving the aim of stakeholder engagement.