A post-trial survey to assess the impact of dissemination of results and unmasking on participants in a 13-year randomised controlled trial on age-related cataract

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Italian-American Clinical Trial of Nutritional Supplements and Age-Related Cataract was designed to assess the impact of a multivitamin-mineral supplement on age-related cataract. Trial results showed evidence of a beneficial effect of the supplement on all types of cataract combined, opposite effects on two of the three types of cataract (beneficial for nuclear opacities and harmful for posterior sub-capsular opacities) and no statistically significant effect on cortical opacities. No treatment recommendations were made. A post-trial survey was conducted on 817 surviving elderly participants to assess their satisfaction, their understanding of treatment assignment to supplement or placebo and the success of masking.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Trial results were communicated by letter and the level of satisfaction and of understanding of the results was assessed by a questionnaire. Participants were offered the option of being unmasked: a second questionnaire was administered to this subset to assess their understanding of the randomisation process and the success of masking.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>610 participants (74.7%) responded to the survey:</p> <p>94.6% thought the description of the results was "very clear" or "quite clear", 5.4% "not clear" or "do not know"; 89.8% considered the results "very interesting" or "quite interesting", 10.2% "not interesting" or "do not know"; 60.3% expressed "satisfaction", 17.2% "both satisfaction and concern", 2.6% "concern", 19.9% "indifference" or "do not know".</p> <p>480 participants (78.7%) accepted the offer to be unmasked to their treatment assignment: 395 (82.3%) recalled/understood the possibility of assignment to vitamins or placebo, 85 (17.7%) did not. 68 participants (17.2%) thought they had taken vitamins (79.4% were correct; p = 0.0006), 47 (11.9%) thought they had taken placebo (59.6% were correct; p = 0.46) and 280 (70.9%) declared they did not know.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results were made difficult to explain to study participants by the qualitatively different effect of treatment on the two most visually significant types of cataract. Although the study did not lead to a recommendation to use the dietary supplement, the vast majority of participants reported satisfaction after they received the results but almost 20% of the participants expressed some concern. Masking to treatment assignment was successful in the majority of participants.</p

Communicating the Results of Clinical Research to Participants: Attitudes, Practices, and Future Directions

The authors discuss the available data on the effects of communicating aggregate and individual research results on participants, investigators, and the research enterprise

Participants' uptake of clinical trial results: a randomised experiment

BJC OPENInternational audienceBACKGROUND: Participants are showing great interest these days in obtaining the results of clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess patients' uptake and understanding of the results of the trial in which they have participated and the impact of a letter offering patients the possibility of consulting the trial results on a specific website. METHODS: Breast cancer patients participating in a trial on the efficacy of Trastuzumab were randomly subdivided into an Internet group (who received the letter of invitation) and a control group (who did not receive it). Among 115 HER2-positive women from 21 centres, 107 (93%) answered a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Most of the patients in both groups had access to the Internet (72.0%). The majority (97.2%) stated that receiving information about the trial results would be useful, and the oncologist was the most frequently preferred information provider. The Internet group's declared uptake of the trial results was only slightly higher (47.1% vs 33.9%; P=0.166); however, they understood the results significantly more accurately (18.8% vs 5.6%; P=0.039). INTERPRETATION: Although Internet was not the respondents' preferred source of information, the possibility of using this source slightly increased the uptake and understanding of the results

Investing in the future: lessons learnt from communicating the results of HSV/ HIV intervention trials in South Africa

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Communicating the results of randomised controlled trials may present challenges for researchers who have to work with communities and policy-makers to anticipate positive outcomes, while being aware that results may show no effect or harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We present a case study from the perspective of researchers in South Africa about the lessons learnt from communicating the results of four trials evaluating treatment for herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) as a new strategy for HIV prevention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We show that contextual factors such as misunderstandings and mistrust played an important role in defining the communications response. Use of different approaches in combination was found to be most effective in building understanding, credibility and trust in the research process. During the communication process, researchers acted beyond their traditional role of neutral observers and became agents of social change. This change in role is in keeping with a global trend towards increased communication of research results and presents both opportunities and challenges for the conduct of future research.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite disappointing trial results which showed no benefit of HSV-2 treatment for HIV prevention, important lessons were learnt about the value of the communication process in building trust between researchers, community members and policy-makers, and creating an enabling environment for future research partnerships.</p

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices <it>seem </it>like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and <it>should</it>, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.</p

Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We report on the challenges of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) coverage for a community-based participatory research (CBPR) environmental justice project, which involved reporting biomonitoring and household exposure results to participants, and included lay participation in research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We draw on our experiences guiding a multi-partner CBPR project through university and state Institutional Review Board reviews, and other CBPR colleagues' written accounts and conference presentations and discussions. We also interviewed academics involved in CBPR to learn of their challenges with Institutional Review Boards.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that Institutional Review Boards are generally unfamiliar with CBPR, reluctant to oversee community partners, and resistant to ongoing researcher-participant interaction. Institutional Review Boards sometimes unintentionally violate the very principles of beneficence and justice which they are supposed to uphold. For example, some Institutional Review Boards refuse to allow report-back of individual data to participants, which contradicts the CBPR principles that guide a growing number of projects. This causes significant delays and may divert research and dissemination efforts. Our extensive education of our university Institutional Review Board convinced them to provide human subjects protection coverage for two community-based organizations in our partnership.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IRBs and funders should develop clear, routine review guidelines that respect the unique qualities of CBPR, while researchers and community partners can educate IRB staff and board members about the objectives, ethical frameworks, and research methods of CBPR. These strategies can better protect research participants from the harm of unnecessary delays and exclusion from the research process, while facilitating the ethical communication of study results to participants and communities.</p

Genomic sequencing in clinical trials

Human genome sequencing is the process by which the exact order of nucleic acid base pairs in the 24 human chromosomes is determined. Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, genomic sequencing is rapidly becoming a major part of our translational research efforts to understand and improve human health and disease. This article reviews the current and future directions of clinical research with respect to genomic sequencing, a technology that is just beginning to find its way into clinical trials both nationally and worldwide. We highlight the currently available types of genomic sequencing platforms, outline the advantages and disadvantages of each, and compare first- and next-generation techniques with respect to capabilities, quality, and cost. We describe the current geographical distributions and types of disease conditions in which these technologies are used, and how next-generation sequencing is strategically being incorporated into new and existing studies. Lastly, recent major breakthroughs and the ongoing challenges of using genomic sequencing in clinical research are discussed