Suchergebnisse

Abstract 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.

© 2019 Elsevier. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ; Patient recruitment in clinical trials is challenging with failure to recruit to time and target sample size common. This may be caused by unanticipated problems or by overestimation of the recruitment rate. This study is a systematic review of statistical models to predict recruitment at the design stage of clinical trials ; The authors would like to thank Ms Van Nguyen Thu, PhD candidate, on the MiRoR project, and Professor Isabelle Boutron, Paris Descartes University, for their help in reviewing the manuscript before submission. This project is part of the MiRoR (Methods in Research on Research) Joint Doctoral Training Programme. The authors would like to acknowledge the MiRoR network for their support and guidance. The European Union's Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska Curie Innovative Training Networks–European Joint Doctorate (ITN-EJD) under grant agreement No. 676207, fund MiRoR. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

Clinical research in intensive care units (ICUs) is essential for improving treatments for critically ill patients. However, invitations to participate in clinical research in this situation pose numerous challenges. ICU studies frequently take place within a narrow time window and patients will often be unconscious and unable to consent. Consent must, therefore, be sought from representatives or proxies of a patient, usually the patient's relatives. Conversations about research participation in this setting will be difficult, as relatives are often overwhelmed and some will feel uneasy about making decisions on behalf of their loved ones. In some circumstances, legislation allows doctors act as representatives so patients can be enrolled in research. Despite these and other distinctive practices in recruitment and consent to ICU research, prior to the Perspectives study there was little good quality evidence and guidance on stakeholders' perspectives to inform how recruitment and consent is carried out in ICU studies. Knowledge of stakeholder perspectives was needed to avoid basing recruitment and consent processes on presumptions about peoples' experience of ICU research. The Perspectives study explored the views of stakeholders with recent first-hand experience of ICU treatment and research to inform approaches to recruitment and consent. Established social science methods and empirical ethics were employed to balance the interests of the various stakeholders and justify recommendations. The findings were used to inform good practice guidance on recruitment and consent to future ICU studies. Researchers and an expert Advisory Group of key stakeholders (including patients, relatives, ICU doctors, nurses and research regulators) contributed throughout the process of developing the guidance bringing different viewpoints to interpreting the evidence and informing the guidance.

Background The oversight and conduct of a randomised controlled trial involves several stakeholders, including a Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Trial Management Group (TMG), Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), funder, and sponsor. We aimed to examine how the relationships between these stakeholders affect the trial oversight process and its rigour, to inform future revision of Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Methods Using an ethnographic study design, we observed the oversight processes of eight trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of the trials' TSCs and TMGs, plus other relevant informants, including sponsors and funders of trials. Data were analysed thematically, and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of current oversight practices in the UK. Findings Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled key informants. Five themes are presented: Collaboration within the TMG and role of the CTU; Collaboration and conflict between oversight committees; Priorities; Communication between trial oversight groups; and Power and accountability. There was evidence of collaborative relationships, based on mutual respect, between CTUs, TMGs and TSCs, but also evidence of conflict. Relationships between trial oversight committees were influenced by stakeholders' priorities, both organisational and individual. Good communication following specific, recognised routes played a central role in ensuring relationships were productive and trial oversight efficient. Participants described the possession of power over trials as a shifting political landscape, and there was lack of clarity regarding the roles and accountability of each committee, the sponsor, and funder. Stakeholders' perceptions of their own power over a trial, and the power of others, influenced relationships between those involved in trial oversight. Conclusions Recent developments in trial design ...

Background: The oversight and conduct of a randomised controlled trial involves several stakeholders, including a Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Trial Management Group (TMG), Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), funder, and sponsor. We aimed to examine how the relationships between these stakeholders affect the trial oversight process and its rigour, to inform future revision of Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Methods: Using an ethnographic study design, we observed the oversight processes of eight trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of the trials' TSCs and TMGs, plus other relevant informants, including sponsors and funders of trials. Data were analysed thematically, and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of current oversight practices in the UK. Findings Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and 66 semistructured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled key informants. Five themes are presented: Collaboration within the TMG and role of the CTU; Collaboration and conflict between oversight committees; Priorities; Communication between trial oversight groups; and Power and accountability. There was evidence of collaborative relationships, based on mutual respect, between CTUs, TMGs and TSCs, but also evidence of conflict. Relationships between trial oversight committees were influenced by stakeholders' priorities, both organisational and individual. Good communication following specific, recognised routes played a central role in ensuring relationships were productive and trial oversight efficient. Participants described the possession of power over trials as a shifting political landscape, and there was lack of clarity regarding the roles and accountability of each committee, the sponsor, and funder. Stakeholders' perceptions of their own power over a trial, and the power of others, influenced relationships between those involved in trial oversight. Conclusions: Recent developments in trial design and conduct have been accompanied by changes in roles and relationships between trial oversight groups. Recognising and respecting the value of differing priorities among those involved in running trials is key to successful relationships between committees, funders and sponsors. Clarity regarding appropriate lines of communication, roles, and accountability is needed. We present 10 evidence-based recommendations to inform updates to international trial guidance, particularly the Medical Research Council guidelines