Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study.
Ethics review processes
Participant communication
Participant withdrawal
Participation changes
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Sep 2024
30 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
18
04
2024
accepted:
16
09
2024
medline:
1
10
2024
pubmed:
1
10
2024
entrez:
1
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points. The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes. Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured. Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points.
METHODS
METHODS
The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39350253
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08465-3
pii: 10.1186/s13063-024-08465-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
636Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ulrich CM, Knafl K, Foxwell AM, Zhou Q, Paidipati C, Tiller D, Ratcliffe SJ, Wallen GR, Richmond TS, Naylor M, Gordon TF, Grady C, Miller V. Experiences of patients after withdrawal from cancer clinical trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2120052–e2120052. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2021.20052 .
doi: 10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2021.20052
pubmed: 34374772
pmcid: 8356063
Cox K, Wilson E, Arthur A, Elkan R, Armstrong S. A randomised controlled trial of nurse-managed trial conclusion following early phase cancer trial participation. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(1):41–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/SJ.BJC.6602675 .
doi: 10.1038/SJ.BJC.6602675
pubmed: 15986032
pmcid: 2361479
PeRSEVERE: PRincipleS for handling end-of-participation EVEnts in clinical trials REsearch. https://persevereprinciples.org/ . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
University of Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit. Information to support participants who stop taking part: guidance for researchers. https://ctru.leeds.ac.uk/information-to-support-participants-who-stop-taking-part/ . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
Cragg W, Bishop L, Gilberts R, Gregg M, Lowdon T, Mancini M, de Martins Barros C, Wheatstone P. How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration. Res Involv Engagem. 2024;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00572-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00572-4
pubmed: 38637845
pmcid: 11025252
UK Health Departments Research Ethics Service. Standard operating procedures for research ethics committees. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/RES_Standard_Operating_Procedures_Version_7.6_September_2022_Final.pdf . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
UK Health Research Authority. Information for participants at the end of a study: guidance for researchers. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/information-participants-end-study-guidance-researchers.pdf . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
Parkinson’s UK. Staying connected with your participants. https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/research/staying-connected-your-participants . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
Sharma A, et al. A consensus-based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36:3179–87 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1
pubmed: 33886027
pmcid: 8481359
Jisc Online Surveys. https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/ . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
UK Trial Managers’ Network. https://www.tmn.ac.uk/ . Accessed 18 Mar 2024
UK Health Research Authority. Applying a proportionate approach to the process of seeking consent. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/applying-proportionate-approach-process-seeking-consent_R3gbJKn.pdf . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
UK Health Research Authority. Community demographic. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/governance/equality-and-diversity/demographic-data-report/ . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
University of Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit. Suggested process for developing communication strategy and materials. https://ctru.leeds.ac.uk/information-to-support-participants-who-stop-taking-part/suggested-process-for-developing-communication-strategy-and-materials/ . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
Sidaway M, Collett C, Kolstoe SE. Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(7): e0288083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288083 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288083
pubmed: 37399215
pmcid: 10317218
Cox S, Solbakk JH, Bernabe RDLC. Research ethics committees and post-approval activities: a qualitative study on the perspectives of European research ethics committee representatives. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;38(11):1897–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2022.2115773 .
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2115773
pubmed: 35993742
National Institute for Health and Care Research. Participant in Research Experience Survey (PRES) 2019/20. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/participant-in-research-experience-survey-pres-201920/30422 . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
National Institute for Health and Care Research. Participant in research experience survey. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-carers-and-the-public/participant-in-research-experience-survey.htm . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.