Decision aids for randomised controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views

Objectives To explore stakeholders’ perceptions of decision aids designed to support the informed consent decision-making process for randomised controlled trials. Design Qualitative semistructured interviews. Participants were provided with prototype trial decision aids in advance to stimulate discussion. Interviews were analysed using an established interpretive approach. Participants 23 stakeholders: Trial Managers (n=5); Research Nurses (n=5); Ethics Committee Chairs (n=5); patients (n=4) and Clinical Principal Investigators (n=4). Setting Embedded within two ongoing randomised controlled trials. All interviews conducted with UK-based participants. Results Certain key aspects (eg, values clarification exercises, presentation of probabilities, experiences of others and balance of options) in the prototype decision aids were perceived by all stakeholders as having a significant advantage (over existing patient information leaflets) in terms of supporting well informed appropriate decisions. However, there were some important differences between the stakeholder groups on specific content (eg, language used in the section on positive and negative features of taking part in a trial and the overall length of the trial decision aids). Generally the stakeholders believed trial decision aids have the potential to better engage potential participants in the decision-making process and allow them to make more personally relevant decisions about their participation. Conclusions Compared to existing patient information leaflets, stakeholders perceived decision aids for trial participation to have the potential to promote a more ‘informed’ decision-making process. Further efforts to develop, refine and formally evaluate trial decision aids should be explored.

[1]  C. Ramsay,et al.  Determining information for inclusion in a decision-support intervention for clinical trial participation: A modified Delphi approach , 2013, Clinical trials.

[2]  P. Butow,et al.  Evaluating the utility of a patient decision aid for potential participants of a prostate cancer trial (RAVES-TROG 08.03). , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  S. Cox,et al.  Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada , 2013, BMC medical ethics.

[4]  M. Dixon-Woods,et al.  Do informed consent documents for cancer trials do what they should? A study of manifest and latent functions. , 2012, Sociology of health & illness.

[5]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Rebecca Ryan,et al.  Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[8]  T. Biggs,et al.  Patient Preferences for the Method of Delivery of Preoperative Patient Information , 2013 .

[9]  Galina Velikova,et al.  Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation , 2011, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[10]  L. Spencer,et al.  Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research , 2002 .

[11]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Mary C. Politi,et al.  Decision support interventions for people making decisions about participation in clinical trials , 2012 .

[13]  J. Forbes,et al.  Improving informed consent: pilot of a decision aid for women invited to participate in a breast cancer prevention trial (IBIS‐II DCIS) , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[14]  Laura Johnson,et al.  How Many Interviews Are Enough? , 2006 .

[15]  S. Cotton,et al.  Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation , 2014, Trials.

[16]  S Holm,et al.  Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. , 2002 .

[17]  E. Winer,et al.  Do cancer patients fully understand clinical trial participation? A pilot study to assess informed consent and patient expectations , 2007, Journal of Cancer Education.

[18]  James Flory,et al.  Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. , 2004, JAMA.

[19]  Sue Ziebland,et al.  Analysing qualitative data , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Supporting positive experiences and sustained participation in clinical trials: looking beyond information provision , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[21]  P Tugwell,et al.  A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. , 1998, Patient education and counseling.

[22]  S. Athar Principles of Biomedical Ethics , 2011, The Journal of IMA.

[23]  Adam A. Nishimura,et al.  Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials , 2013, BMC Medical Ethics.

[24]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters , 2014, Implementation Science.

[25]  ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. , 2001, Journal of postgraduate medicine.

[26]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[27]  Heather Draper,et al.  What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review , 2012, BMJ Open.

[28]  B. Summers,et al.  Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  Mark Conner,et al.  Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review. , 2008, Social science & medicine.