Relative solidarity: Conceptualising communal participation in genomic research among potential research participants in a developing Sub-Saharan African setting

Objective As genomic research gathers momentum in sub-Saharan Africa, it has become increasingly important to understand the reasons why individuals wish to participate in this kind of medical research. Against the background of communitarianism conceived as typical of African communities, it is often suggested that individuals consent to participate on the grounds of solidarity and to further the common good. In this paper, we seek to explore this contention by presenting data from focus groups with potential research participants about what would influence their decisions to participate in genomic research. Methods and results These focus groups were conducted as part of a larger qualitative study with a purposively selected group of participants from a community situated in south west Nigeria. We conducted fifteen focus group sessions comprising 50 participants organized by age and sex, namely: 1) adult (>30 years) males, 2) adult females, 3) youth (18–30 years) males, and 4) youth females. A mixed age-group was conducted to probe different views between the age groups. There was discordance and clear division between the adults and youths regarding the decision to participate in genomic research based on commitment to communal values. Adults based their decision to participate on altruism and furthering the common good while youths based their decisions on personal benefits and preferences and also took into account the views and welfare of family members and neighbours. Conclusions This discordance suggests a ‘generational shift’ and we advance a model of ‘relative solidarity’ among the youths, which is different from the communal solidarity model typical of African communitarianism. Our findings suggest the need for a closer look at strategies for implementation of community engagement and informed consent in genomic research in this region, and we recommend further studies to explore this emerging trend

How experience makes a difference: practitioners' views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials

BACKGROUND: In 2008 UK legislation was amended to enable the use of deferred consent for paediatric emergency care (EC) trials in recognition of the practical and ethical difficulties of obtaining prospective consent in an emergency situation. However, ambiguity about how to make deferred consent acceptable to parents, children and practitioners remains. In particular, little is known about practitioners’ views and experiences of seeking deferred consent in this setting. METHODS: As part of a wider study investigating consent methods in paediatric emergency care trials (called CONNECT), a 20 item online questionnaire was sent by email inviting practitioners (doctors and nurses) who were involved in talking with families about children’s and young people’s (aged 0–16 years) participation in UK EC trials. To ensure those with and without experience of deferred consent were included, practitioners were sampled using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling methods. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, whilst the constant comparative method was used to analyse qualitative data. Elements of a symbiotic empirical ethics approach was used to integrate empirical evidence and bioethical literature to explore the data and draw practice orientated conclusions. RESULTS: Views on deferred consent differed depending upon whether or not practitioners were experienced in this consent method. Practitioners who had no experience of deferred consent reported negative perceptions of this consent method; these practitioners were concerned about the impact that deferred consent would have upon the parent-practitioner relationship. In contrast, practitioners experienced in deferred consent described how families had been receptive to the consent method, if conducted sensitively and in a time appropriate manner. Experienced practitioners also described how deferred consent had improved recruitment, parental decision-making capacity and parent-practitioner relationships in the emergency care setting. CONCLUSIONS: The views of practitioners with first-hand experience of deferred consent should be considered in the design and ethical review of future paediatric EC trials; the design and ethical review of such trials should not solely be informed by the beliefs of those without experience of using deferred consent. Further research involving parents and children is required to inform practitioner training and normative guidance on the use and appropriateness of deferred consent in emergency settings

The information and support needs of patients living with inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients’ experiences of living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with a focus on their information and support needs. METHODS: Qualitative interview study involving adults diagnosed with IBD recruited through social media. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Interviews with 15 patients (9 females, 6 males) highlighted how misdiagnosis or hesitation to diagnose had caused frustration and anxiety. Once diagnosed, only a few participants received detailed information about IBD from their doctor. Negative experiences shared on social media caused initial anxiety, as individuals assumed that they may have a similar experience, yet online communities enabled insights into the experiences of others, helping patients adjust to living with IBD. Participants described both positive and negative impacts of living with IBD, including improved confidence and periods of anxiety. Discussion: Our findings highlight the importance of clear information and support from health professionals, as well as the benefits of online communities for ongoing support. At the point of diagnosis, patients would benefit from information about what IBD is, as well as how it may impact day to day life from doctors so that social media is not the only source of initial information about IBD

Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review

Aims Challenges in seeking parents’ consent for research at the point when their child is critically ill have been a significant barrier to improving treatments for children and conducting trials. In 2008 UK legislation was amended to enable consent for emergency research to be sought after a child has been given the investigational drug or device. This is known as deferred consent. CONNECT is the first UK study to explore parent and practitioner views and experiences of deferred consent in children’s clinical care trials. It aimed to integrate evidence and ethical theory to inform practice guidelines to optimise recruitment and consent in this challenging setting. Methods Mixed methods qualitative and quantitative study with 354 participants (292 parents, 39 nurses, 19 doctors and 4 Clinical Trials Unit practitioners). We integrated findings with previous research and ethical theory to develop draft guidance on deferred consent. The CONNECT advisory group and 32 key stakeholders (critical care practitioners, ethicists and parents) contributed to the development of the final CONNECT guidance. Results Parents may be initially shocked or angered to discover their child can be entered into a trial without their prior consent. However practitioner explanations of why consent is deferred can help address parents’ initial concerns and reassure them. Parents view deferred consent as more acceptable for trials of medical interventions already used in clinical practice than trials involving new interventions or a change in clinical practice. Practitioners experienced in deferred consent describe how families are receptive to the consent method, if conducted sensitively and if the timing is appropriate. CONNECT guidance provides recommendations to inform: 1) pre-trial research for potentially challenging trials; 2) publicising trials that use deferred consent; 3) seeking deferred consent; 4) seeking deferred consent when a child has died; 5) written trial information; and 6) child assent. Conclusion Those involved in the funding, design, conduct and ethical review of critical care trials can use CONNECT guidance to help ensure approaches to deferred consent are appropriateto the needs of children and their parents. Further research is required to explore the views of children and bereaved parents who have experienced deferred consent

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. © 2013 Woolfall et al

Stakeholders' perspectives on clinical trial acceptability and approach to consent within a limited timeframe: a mixed methods study.

ObjectivesThe Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.DesignA mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.SettingFourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.ParticipantsOf the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.ResultsParents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child's participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be 'streamlined' to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.ConclusionParents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.Trial registration numberISRCTN11746266

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials

Background: Alternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC. Methods: Qualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe et al (2016) model for recruitment to trials. Results: We analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC. Conclusion: This study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required