Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial

Background: The participant information sheet (PIS) provided to potential trial participants is a critical part of the process of valid consent. However, there is long-standing concern that these lengthy and complex documents are not fit-for-purpose. This has been supported recently through the application of a performance-based approach to testing and improving readability called user testing. This method is now widely used to improve patient medicine leaflets - determining whether people can find and understand key facts. This study applied for the first time a controlled design to determine whether a PIS developed through user testing had improved readability over the original, using a sheet from a UK trial in acute myeloid leukemia (AML16). Methods: In the first phase the performance of the original PIS was tested on people in the target group for the trial. There were three rounds of testing including 50 people in total - with the information revised according to its performance after each of the first 2 rounds. In the second phase, the revised PIS was compared with the original in a parallel groups randomised controlled trial (RCT) A total of 123 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to read one version of the PIS to find and show understanding of 21 key facts. Results: The first, developmental phase produced a revised PIS significantly altered in its wording and layout. In the second, trial phase 66% of participants who read the revised PIS were able to show understanding of all aspects of the trial, compared with 15% of those reading the original version (Odds Ratio 11.2; Chi-square = 31.5 p < .001). When asked to state a preference, 87.1% participants chose the revised PIS (Sign test p < .001). Conclusions: The original PIS for the AML16 trial may not have enabled valid consent. Combining performance-based user testing with expertise in writing for patients and information design led to a significantly improved and preferred information sheet. User testing is an efficient method for indicating strengths and weaknesses in trial information, and Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards should consider requesting such testing, to ensure that PIS are fit-for-purpose

Statistical issues in first-in-man studies

In March 2006 a first-in-man trial took place using healthy volunteers involving the use of monoclonal antibodies. Within hours the subjects had suffered such adverse effects that they were admitted to intensive care at Northwick Park Hospital. In April 2006 the Secretary of State for Health announced the appointment of Professor (now Sir) Gordon Duff, who chairs the UK's Commission on Human Medicines, to chair a scientific expert group on phase 1 clinical trials. The group reported on December 7th, 2006 (Expert Scientific Group on Clinical Trials, 2006a). Clinical trials have a well-established regulatory basis both in the UK and worldwide. Trials have to be approved by the regulatory authority and are subject to a detailed protocol concerning, among other things, the study design and statistical analyses that will form the basis of the evaluation. In fact, a cornerstone of the regulatory framework is the statistical theory and methods that underpin clinical trials. As a result, the Royal Statistical Society established an expert group of its own to look in detail at the statistical issues that might be relevant to first-in-man studies. The group mainly comprised senior Fellows of the Society who had expert knowledge of the theory and application of statistics in clinical trials. However, the group also included an expert immunologist and clinicians to ensure that the interface between statistics and clinical disciplines was not overlooked. In addition, expert representation was sought from Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry (PSI), an organization with which the Royal Statistical Society has very close links. The output from the Society's expert group is contained in this report. It makes a number of recommendations directed towards the statistical aspects of clinical trials. As such it complements the report by Professor Duff's group and will, I trust, contribute to a safer framework for first-in-man trials in the future. Tim Holt ("President, Royal Statistical Society") Copyright 2007 Royal Statistical Society.

Performance-based readability testing of participant information for a Phase 3 IVF trial

BACKGROUND Studies suggest that the process of patient consent to clinical trials is sub-optimal. Participant information sheets are important but can be technical and lengthy documents. Performance-based readability testing is an established means of assessing patient information, and this study aimed to test its application to participant information for a Phase 3 trial. METHODS An independent groups design was used to study the User Testing performance of the participant information sheet from the Phase 3 'Poor Responders' trial of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). 20 members of the public were asked to read it, then find and demonstrate understanding of 21 key aspects of the trial. The participant information sheet was then re-written and re-designed, and tested on 20 members of the public, using the same 21 item questionnaire. RESULTS The original participant information sheet performed well in some places. Participants could not find some answers and some of the found information was not understood. In total there were 30 instances of information being not found or not understood. Answers to three questions were found but not understood by many of the participants, these related to aspects of the drug timing, Follicle Stimulating Hormone and compensation. Only two of the 20 participants could find and show understanding of all question items when using the original sheet. The revised sheet performed generally better, with 17 instances of information being not found or not understood, although the number of 'not found' items increased. Half of the 20 participants could find and show understanding of all question items when using the revised sheet. When asked to compare the versions of the sheet, almost all participants. CONCLUSION The original participant information sheet may not have enabled patients fully to give valid consent. Participants seeing the revised sheet were better able to understand the trial. Those who write information for trial participants should take account of good practice in information design. Performance-based User Testing may be a useful method to indicate strengths