Evidence mapPaperPMID 36068637Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs).

Victoria Shepherd, Fiona Wood, Katie Gillies, Abby O'Connell, Adam Martin, Kerenza Hood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Victoria ShepherdCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, 4th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK. ShepherdVL1@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7687-0817
Fiona WoodDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Abby O'ConnellExeter Clinical Trials Unit, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Adam MartinAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, 4th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25350Chief Scientist Office HSRU1HCRW_ NIHR-FS(A)-2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of participants in trials is rising, with a corresponding growth in randomised Studies Within Trials (SWATs) to evaluate their (cost-)effectiveness. Despite recognised challenges in conducting trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent, until now, no individual-level recruitment interventions have focused on this population. Following the development of a decision aid for family members making non-emergency trial participation decisions on behalf of people with impaired capacity, we have designed a SWAT to evaluate the decision aid in a number of host trials (CONSULT). Unlike in recruitment SWATs to date, the CONSULT intervention is aimed at a 'proxy' decision-maker (a family member) who is not a participant in the host trial and does not receive the trial intervention. This commentary explores the methodological and ethical considerations encountered when designing such SWATs, using the CONSULT SWAT as a case example. Potential solutions to address these issues are also presented. DISCUSSION: We encountered practical issues around informed consent, data collection, and follow-up which involves linking the intervention receiver (the proxy) with recruitment and retention data from the host trial, as well as issues around randomisation level, resource use, and maintaining the integrity of the host trial. Unless addressed, methodological uncertainty about differential recruitment and heterogeneity between trial populations could potentially limit the scope for drawing robust inferences and harmonising data from different SWAT host trials. Proxy consent is itself ethically complex, and so when conducting a SWAT which aims to disrupt and enhance proxy consent decisions, there are additional ethical issues to be considered.

conclusionsDesigning a SWAT to evaluate a recruitment intervention for non-emergency trials with adults lacking capacity to consent has raised a number of methodological and ethical considerations. Explicating these challenges, and some potential ways to address them, creates a starting point for discussions about conducting these potentially more challenging SWATs. Increasing the evidence base for the conduct of trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent is intended to improve both the ability to conduct these trials and their quality, and so help build research capacity for this under-served population.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentResearch DesignAdultFamilyHumansProxyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUncertaintyDementiaInformed consentMental capacityProxyRCTsRecruitmentResearch methodologyStrokeSWATs

Identifiers

PMID36068637
PMCPMC9450319

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.