Journals | Policy | Permission

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Original Article

Volume 5, Number 5, October 2013, pages 401-406

Participant Preferences for the Provision of Registration Trials Results

Clinical trials leading to drug approval (registration trials) play a central role in the drug development process. To ethical conduct of clinical trials, various issues should be considered. Among these, recent attention has been paid to providing the results of registration trials to the participants [1]. Communication between investigators and participants seems to be important to promote registration trials, and in Japan, provision of registration trials results is mentioned in the plans for the promotion of registration trials by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and by the Ministry of Culture and Science of Japan.

The contribution of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) to registration trials is now widely recognized in Japan, including at Tokushima University Hospital, a University Hospital in a rural area [2]. At present, CRCs in contact with investigators provide trials results to participants on a demand basis. To establish a more systematic means of providing results, we examined participant preferences for receiving the results of registration trials at Tokushima University Hospital in collaboration with Tokushima National Hospital. Herein we present the results of the analysis.

We assessed participant preferences for receiving the results of registration trials by conducting a questionnaire survey at Tokushima University Hospital and Tokushima National Hospital in a rural area of Japan.

Potential participants were those who had participated in registration trials at Tokushima University Hospital or Tokushima National Hospital between September 2010 and March 2011. One month after trial participation, CRCs provided participants with the details of the present study after obtaining the consent of the investigators of each trial. Questionnaires were then administered to participants who had given informed consent.

An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 15 questions divided into two parts was developed. The first part contained 6 questions relating to participant characteristics and the registration trials in which they participated. The second part contained 9 questions regarding preferences for the provision of information. A five-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) was used to measure preferences. All participants were adults.

We compared participant preferences according to disease, and variables were analyzed using the Chi-squared test. All P values were based on two-sided tests, and P < 0.05 was considered significant.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokushima University Hospital (#1054) and that of Tokushima National Hospital (#22-9).

Consent to be included in the present study was obtained from the investigators of the assessed registration trials. Of the 58 registered participants, 1 withdrew, giving a response rate of 98%. Respondents (n = 57) consisted of 28 males (49.1%) and 29 females (50.9%) aged 20 - 29 years (n = 2, 3.5%), 30 - 39 years (n = 6, 10.5%), 40 - 49 years (n = 8, 14.0%), 50 - 59 years (n = 10, 17.5%), 60 - 69 years (n = 18, 31.6%), 70 - 79 years (n = 11, 19.3%), and > 80 years (n = 2, 3.5%). In the registration trials, respondents were given agents against acute diseases (n = 3, 5.3%), chronic diseases (n = 15, 26.3%), neurological diseases (n = 29, 50.9%), malignant diseases (n = 7, 12.3%), and psychological diseases (n = 3, 5.3%).

To examine the perception of the registration trials, we asked participants to comment on the trial phase, duration, and placebo use. For the trial phase, 10 (17.5%) respondents answered phase II, 31 (54.4%) answered phase III, and the remaining 16 (28.1%) provided no answer. Duration was reported as less than 3 months by 2 (3.5%) respondents, 3 - 6 months by 7 (12.3%), 6 - 12 months by 8 (14.0%), 1 - 2 years by 14 (24.6%), more than 1 year by 20 (35.1%), and until registration by 1 (1.8%), while 5 (8.8%) provided no answer. Regarding placebo use, 33 (57.9%) respondents answered the trials were with placebo, 13 (22.8%) answered the trials were without placebo, and 11 (19.3%) provided no answer.

We asked participants about their preferences for receiving information on their own allocation, even if they had received placebo instead of the active drug. Because only some respondents had participated in registration trials that included placebo, participants of registration trials without placebo were encouraged to provide answers on the assumption that they had participated in registration trials that included placebo.

As shown in Table 1, more than 70% of respondents agreed (strongly agree and agree) to obtain information on their allocation, even if they received the placebo.

Click to view

Table 1. Preference for Receiving Information on Allocation in a Registration Trial

As shown in Table 2, more than 80% of participants agreed (strongly agree and agree) to obtain information on trial results, even if the results were negative, and more than 80% of participants agreed (strongly agree and agree) to obtain information on the labeling state of the agent, even if development had ceased.

Click to view

Table 2. Preference for Receiving Information on the Results of Registration Trials

To examine the possibility that participant preferences differed according to the underlying disease, we categorized neurological diseases and malignant diseases as difficult-to-treat diseases and other types of diseases, which included acute diseases, chronic diseases, and psychological diseases.

As shown in Table 3, significantly fewer participants with difficult-to-treat diseases agreed to receive information on their allocation compared with those with other types of diseases, although more than 60% agreed to such provision.

Click to view

Table 3. Preferences for Receiving Information on Allocation in the Trial and on the State of Registration Trials, Depending on the Type of Disease

Regarding the status of the registration trials, although around 70% of respondents in both groups agreed to the provision, significantly fewer participants with difficult-to-treat diseases agreed to receive information compared with those with other types of diseases.

We asked participants to indicate desirable information by circling the corresponding options, and the following results were obtained: commercial name of labeled drug (n = 5), disease targeted by labeled drug (n = 7), price of labeled drug (n = 6), side effects of labeled drug (n = 15), and date of labeled drug authorization (n = 15).

In addition, we asked participants to indicate their preferences for receiving information on future registration trials involving agents against their disease if the trials were conducted in the same hospitals as past registration trials or in other hospitals in Tokushima Prefecture. Nine participants wanted information on trials in their hospital, while 1 wanted information involving other hospitals in Tokushima Prefecture.

Preferences for means of receiving information are shown in Table 4. More than 50% of participants desired information direct from the physician in a face-to-face manner. A considerable number of participants desired information from CRCs (24.4%) or by posted letter (33.3%).

Click to view

Table 4. Preferences Means of Receiving Information on the Results of Registration Trials

Although attention has been focused on the disclosure of study results to participants [1], investigators and CRCs in contact with investigators currently provide the results of trials to participants on a demand basis at Tokushima University Hospital and Tokushima National Hospital. To establish a more systematic means of providing results, we examined the preferences of participants for receiving the results of registration trials.

We examined participant attitudes on the provision of information regarding their allocation. Since not all participants had participated in registration trials, including trials with placebo, those who had participated in registration trials without placebo were encouraged to provide answers, on the assumption that they had participated in registration trials including placebo. As shown in Table 1, more than 70% of the participants preferred to receive information on their own allocation, even if they had received placebo instead of an active drug in the registration trial in which they had participated. In the present study, around 20% of the participants did not clearly express whether their registration trials included placebo. Joffe S at al [3] reported that misconceptions about cancer clinical trials are frequent among trial participants. Although there is a possibility that participants who had participated in registration trials without placebo could not realize the true meaning of placebo, the present finding suggests a positive preference for the provision of information on their allocation, and this tendency is consistent with that of previous reports involving study participants with chronic diseases [4-6].

Significantly fewer participants with difficult-to-treat diseases agreed to obtain information on their allocation compared with participants with other types of diseases, although more than 60% agreed to provision of such information (Table 3). These findings may indicate that more participants with difficult-to-treat diseases feared the uncertainty and potential disappointment caused by the provision, and this aspect should be considered in a future study.

Shalowitz and Miller [1] reviewed studies that reported a desire to receive results as a percentage of respondents; 90% (median; range 20 - 100%) of respondents wished to receive study results. In line with these findings, participants in the present study wanted to be informed of the results of the registration trial, even if negative or if drug development had ceased (Table 2). With regard to disease, significantly fewer participants with difficult-to-treat diseases (~70%) agreed to obtain the status of the registration trials compared with participants with other types of diseases (Table 3). Although the purpose of clinical trials, including registration trials, provides a societal benefit, many patients with no available therapy, such as some types of cancer patients, tend to participate in clinical trials, due potential personal benefits [7]. The reason for this difference is unclear at present, but one possible explanation is that participants with other types of diseases considered societal benefits as the reason for participating in the registration trials and were therefore more eager to know about the status of the registration trials. Further study is needed to precisely determine the preferences of patients with various diseases at various stages. Taken together, the present findings may show that feedback should be handled sensitively, depending on the disease.

Concerning the means of providing trial results to participants, investigations [8, 9] have shown posted letters to be preferable for adult participants. Brealey et al [10] reported that in participants in a pragmatic randomized trial, longer leaflets were preferred over shorter ones. In a chemotherapy trial for breast cancer, Johnson et al [11] reported that 40% of patients preferred to receive results via their hospital, while 47% preferred results posted directly to their home. In the present study, more participants wanted to receive their information in a face-to-face manner, while a considerable number of participants (33.3%) wanted the results delivered by post (Table 4). Considering that participants in the present study were treated regularly at the outpatient clinic, we regard our findings as being in line with those of previous reports.

In Japan, the contribution of CRCs in clinical trials has become well recognized. In a multicenter hypertension study, we found that physicians who could recruit participants into a trial considered the presence of a support system with CRCs as the reason to participate in the trial [12]. In the present study, a considerable number of trial participants (24.6%) had willingness to receive information from the CRC (Table 4). Practical issues, such as cost and time, were mentioned as barriers for investigators when informing participants of trial results [13, 14]. Establishing a CRC-initiated system for the provision of precise information may contribute to communication between investigators and participants, and moreover to investigator motivation.

The present study evaluated only the views of participants in a rural area of Japan. Nevertheless, we found that participants tended to prefer receiving information on the administered agent, even if placebo, and on the results of the registration trial, even if they had difficult-to-treat diseases. Buchwald H et al [15] reported that patients showed improved perceptions of their emotional quality of life, and moreover, patients became disposed to advise others to join a research study after disclosure of study results. Based on the present findings, we intend to establish a system for providing information. However, further study is warranted to determine the effect of the system on more effective communication between investigators and participants, as well as on the promotion of registration trials in rural areas.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Drs. Motohiro Hirasawa, Junichi Iga, Ryuji Kaji, Hiro-omi Kanayama, Jun Kishi, Munehide Matsuhisa, Naoko Matsui, Masataka Sata, Kenta Sato, Mitsuo Shimada, Masayuki Takahashi, Tetsuji Takayama, Tokushima University Hospital, for their encouragement and support, and also thank members of the Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics, Tokushima University Hospital for their kind support.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests in relation to this article.

1. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):e91.
   pubmed
2. Yanagawa H, Irahara M. Supporting system for promotion of clinical trials at Tokushima University Hospital. Shikoku Acta Medica. 2003;59:299-303, [in Japanese, English abstract].
3. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358(9295):1772-1777.
   pubmed
4. Dinnett EM, Mungall MM, Kent JA, Ronald ES, McIntyre KE, Anderson E, Gaw A. Unblinding of trial participants to their treatment allocation: lessons from the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER). Clin Trials. 2005;2(3):254-259.
   pubmed
5. Dinnett EM, Mungall MM, Gordon C, Ronald ES, Gaw A. Offering results to research participants. BMJ. 2006;332(7540):549-550.
   pubmed
6. Williams SL, Ferrigno L, Maraini G, Rosmini F, Sperduto RD. 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. Trials. 2011;12:148.
   pubmed
7. Wright JR, Whelan TJ, Schiff S, Dubois S, Crooks D, Haines PT, DeRosa D, et al. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(21):4312-4318.
   pubmed
8. Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S. Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views. BMJ. 2006;332(7535):206-210.
   pubmed
9. Partridge AH, Wong JS, Knudsen K, Gelman R, Sampson E, Gadd M, Bishop KL, et al. Offering participants results of a clinical trial: sharing results of a negative study. Lancet. 2005;365(9463):963-964.
   pubmed
10. Brealey S, Andronis L, Dennis L, Atwell C, Bryan S, Coulton S, Cox H, et al. Participants' preference for type of leaflet used to feed back the results of a randomised trial: a survey. Trials. 2010;11:116.
    pubmed
11. Johnson L, Barrett-Lee P, Ellis P, Bliss JM. How do patients want to learn of results of clinical trials?A survey of 1431 breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(1):34-38.
    pubmed
12. Yanagawa H, Kishuku M, Akaike M, Azuma H, Irahara M. View of physicians on and barriers to patient enrollment in a multicenter clinical trial: experience in a Japanese rural area. Int Arch Med. 2010;3:7.
    pubmed
13. Di Blasi, Kaptchuk TJ, Weinman J, Kleijnen J. Informing participants of allocation to placebo at trial closure: postal survey. BMJ. 2002;325(7376):1329.
    pubmed
14. MacNeil SD, Fernandez CV. Attitudes of research ethics board chairs towards disclosure of research results to participants: results of a national survey. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(9):549-553.
    pubmed
15. Buchwald H, Fitch LL, Matts JP, Johnson JW, Hansen BJ, Stuenkel MR, Brooks HB. Perception of quality of life before and after disclosure of trial results: a report from the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias (POSCH). Control Clin Trials. 1993;14(6):500-510.
    pubmed

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research is published by Elmer Press Inc.