Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials.
Diversity
Inclusion
Randomised controlled trials
Research design
Under-served groups
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Oct 2024
02 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
13
06
2024
accepted:
17
09
2024
medline:
3
10
2024
pubmed:
3
10
2024
entrez:
2
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials. Development of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) 'roundtable' discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team. Over 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project-patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The 'roundtable' discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk . Researchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population. Randomised clinical trials compare one or more treatments to another to see which ones work best. Trials don’t always include people or groups who might benefit from the results: those excluded are sometimes called ‘under- served groups’. Recent work has shone a light on this and now researchers are being asked by the public, trial funders and others to design their research so that under-served groups are more able to take part.We worked on a project to find out how to make sure everyone can be part of clinical trials. We looked at published work and held five online meetings with researchers, doctors, and patients to see what was being done already, and to think of other things that could help under-served groups take part in trials. Three groups of people, including scientists, patients, doctors and other NHS workers then used this information to redesign three older trials using some existing inclusivity frameworks to think through the barriers for under-served groups in these trials. The three groups then talked through these trials at a 2-hour meeting, suggesting changes to the original trial plan, and discussed whether the suggestions were practical and useful. From this we came up with recommendations for how to design trials so that they have fewer barriers for under-served groups.We interviewed people to find out the best way to put these things into practice and talk through any practical issues. Using all of this information: the recommendations and what came out of the interviews, the study team created some guidance – ‘STEP UP (Strategies for Trialists to promote Equal Participation in clinical trials for Under-served Populations)’ – for people working in trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials.
METHODS
METHODS
Development of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) 'roundtable' discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Over 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project-patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The 'roundtable' discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk .
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Researchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population.
Randomised clinical trials compare one or more treatments to another to see which ones work best. Trials don’t always include people or groups who might benefit from the results: those excluded are sometimes called ‘under- served groups’. Recent work has shone a light on this and now researchers are being asked by the public, trial funders and others to design their research so that under-served groups are more able to take part.We worked on a project to find out how to make sure everyone can be part of clinical trials. We looked at published work and held five online meetings with researchers, doctors, and patients to see what was being done already, and to think of other things that could help under-served groups take part in trials. Three groups of people, including scientists, patients, doctors and other NHS workers then used this information to redesign three older trials using some existing inclusivity frameworks to think through the barriers for under-served groups in these trials. The three groups then talked through these trials at a 2-hour meeting, suggesting changes to the original trial plan, and discussed whether the suggestions were practical and useful. From this we came up with recommendations for how to design trials so that they have fewer barriers for under-served groups.We interviewed people to find out the best way to put these things into practice and talk through any practical issues. Using all of this information: the recommendations and what came out of the interviews, the study team created some guidance – ‘STEP UP (Strategies for Trialists to promote Equal Participation in clinical trials for Under-served Populations)’ – for people working in trials.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Randomised clinical trials compare one or more treatments to another to see which ones work best. Trials don’t always include people or groups who might benefit from the results: those excluded are sometimes called ‘under- served groups’. Recent work has shone a light on this and now researchers are being asked by the public, trial funders and others to design their research so that under-served groups are more able to take part.We worked on a project to find out how to make sure everyone can be part of clinical trials. We looked at published work and held five online meetings with researchers, doctors, and patients to see what was being done already, and to think of other things that could help under-served groups take part in trials. Three groups of people, including scientists, patients, doctors and other NHS workers then used this information to redesign three older trials using some existing inclusivity frameworks to think through the barriers for under-served groups in these trials. The three groups then talked through these trials at a 2-hour meeting, suggesting changes to the original trial plan, and discussed whether the suggestions were practical and useful. From this we came up with recommendations for how to design trials so that they have fewer barriers for under-served groups.We interviewed people to find out the best way to put these things into practice and talk through any practical issues. Using all of this information: the recommendations and what came out of the interviews, the study team created some guidance – ‘STEP UP (Strategies for Trialists to promote Equal Participation in clinical trials for Under-served Populations)’ – for people working in trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39358688
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02342-y
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02342-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
227Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
M. D. Witham et al., “Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: Results from a UK multi-stakeholder process,” Trials, vol. 21, no. 1, Aug. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/S13063-020-04613-7 .
NIHR, “Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from the NIHR-INCLUDE project.,” 2020. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/improving-inclusion-of-under-served-groups-in-clinical-research-guidance-from-include-project/25435 . Accessed 19 June 2024.
Houghton C, et al. Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: A qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000045 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000045
Gillies K, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3:2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub3 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub3
Treweek S, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6
National Institute of Health and Care Research, “The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework,” 2020. https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/include/ . Accessed 09 Jan 2023.
H. Gardner, K. Biggs, and F. Sherratt, “The INCLUDE Socioeconomic Disadvantage Framework,” 2022. https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/socioeconomic-disadvantage-framework/ . Accessed 19 June 2024.
V. Shepherd et al., “INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework,” 2022. https://www.capacityconsentresearch.com/include-impaired-capacity-to-consent-framework.html . Accessed 19 June 2024.
The National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, “Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Toolkit,” no. September, 2021. Available: https://arc-em.nihr.ac.uk/clahrcs-store/equality-impact-assessment-eqia-toolkit .
National Institute of Health and Care Research, “Payment guidance for researchers and professionals,” Version 1, 2021. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/payment-guidance-for-researchers-and-professionals/27392 .
Biggs K, Dix C, Shiely F, et al. Effective interventions to increase representation of under-served groups in randomised trials in UK and Ireland: a scoping literature review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res. 2024;4:12. https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13524.1 .
V. A. Goodwin et al., “Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework,” Age Ageing, vol. 52, no. 6, Jun. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad082 .
Jennings CG, MacDonald TM, Wei L, Brown MJ, McConnachie L, Mackenzie IS. Does offering an incentive payment improve recruitment to clinical trials and increase the proportion of socially deprived and elderly participants? Trials. 2015;16:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0582-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0582-8
pubmed: 25888477
pmcid: 4364332
Forster SE, et al. Recruiting older people to a randomised controlled dietary intervention trial - How hard can it be? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-17 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-17
pubmed: 20175903
pmcid: 2843618
Withall J, et al. The Tribulations of Trials: Lessons Learnt Recruiting 777 Older Adults Into REtirement in ACTion (REACT), a Trial of a Community, Group-Based Active Aging Intervention Targeting Mobility Disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(12):2387–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa051 .
doi: 10.1093/gerona/glaa051
pubmed: 32147709
pmcid: 7662171
A. Douglas et al., “Recruiting South Asians to a lifestyle intervention trial: experiences and lessons from PODOSA (Prevention of Diabetes & Obesity in South Asians).,” Trials, vol. 12, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-220 .
V. Kolovou et al., “Recruitment and retention of participants from socioeconomically deprived communities: lessons from the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus3) Randomised Controlled Trial.,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 272, Nov. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01149-x .
Jayes M, Palmer R. Initial evaluation of the Consent Support Tool: A structured procedure to facilitate the inclusion and engagement of people with aphasia in the informed consent process. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2014;16(2):159–68. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2013.795999 .
doi: 10.3109/17549507.2013.795999
pubmed: 23826849
Agnew R, van den Heuvel E, Tannenbaum C. Efficiency of using community organisations as catalysts for recruitment to continence promotion trials. Clin Trials. 2013;10(1):151–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774512460144 .
doi: 10.1177/1740774512460144
pubmed: 23043154
Masood Y, Bower P, Waheed MW, Brown G, Waheed W. Synthesis of researcher reported strategies to recruit adults of ethnic minorities to clinical trials in the United Kingdom: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;78:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2019.01.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.01.004
pubmed: 30634035
Forster SE, et al. Recruiting older people to a randomised controlled dietary intervention trial–how hard can it be? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-17 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-17
pubmed: 20175903
pmcid: 2843618
Tervalon M, Murray-García J. Cultural Humility Versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(2):117–25. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233 .
doi: 10.1353/hpu.2010.0233
pubmed: 10073197
A. Booth, C. McDaid, A. Scrimshire, H. pal Singh, A. Scantlebury, and C. Hewitt, “Using publicly available UK datasets to identify recruitment sites to maximise inclusion of under-served groups: three case studies,” NIHR Open Res., vol. 4, p. 18, 2024, https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13551.1 .
Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Jepson M, Donovan JL. Intensive Triangulation of Qualitative Research and Quantitative Data to Improve Recruitment to Randomized Trials: The QuinteT Approach. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(5):672–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319828693 .
doi: 10.1177/1049732319828693
pubmed: 30791819