Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey

Authors: Martina Svobodova, Nina Jacob, Kerry Hood, Katie Gillies, Rachel Hale, Jennifer Bostock, Peter Bower, Adrian Edwards, Penelope Farthing, Sarah Rawlinson, Shaun Treweek, Jeremy Howick

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective ‘nocebo’ harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced.

Methods

We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement.

Results

Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages.

Conclusions

Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kirby N, Shepherd V, Howick J, Betteridge S, Hood K. Nocebo effects and participant information leaflets: evaluating information provided on adverse effects in UK clinical trials. Trials. 2020;21(1):658.CrossRef Kirby N, Shepherd V, Howick J, Betteridge S, Hood K. Nocebo effects and participant information leaflets: evaluating information provided on adverse effects in UK clinical trials. Trials. 2020;21(1):658.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Howick J, Webster R, Kirby N, Hood K. Rapid overview of systematic reviews of nocebo effects reported by patients taking placebos in clinical trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):674.CrossRef Howick J, Webster R, Kirby N, Hood K. Rapid overview of systematic reviews of nocebo effects reported by patients taking placebos in clinical trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):674.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Howick J. Unethical informed consent caused by overlooking poorly measured nocebo effects. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(9):590-4. Howick J. Unethical informed consent caused by overlooking poorly measured nocebo effects. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(9):590-4.
4.
go back to reference Svobodova MHR, Hood K, Gillies K, Bostock J, Bower P, Edwards A, Rawlinson S, Treweek S, Howick J. Developing core principles for sharing information about potential intervention benefits and harms in patient information leaflets using a modified Delphi survey. 2021.CrossRef Svobodova MHR, Hood K, Gillies K, Bostock J, Bower P, Edwards A, Rawlinson S, Treweek S, Howick J. Developing core principles for sharing information about potential intervention benefits and harms in patient information leaflets using a modified Delphi survey. 2021.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Junger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017;31(8):684–706.CrossRef Junger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017;31(8):684–706.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Graefe A, Armstrong JS. Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Int J Forecast. 2011;27(1):183–95.CrossRef Graefe A, Armstrong JS. Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Int J Forecast. 2011;27(1):183–95.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gillies K, Entwistle V, Treweek SP, Fraser C, Williamson PR, Campbell MK. Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT): protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2015;16:484.CrossRef Gillies K, Entwistle V, Treweek SP, Fraser C, Williamson PR, Campbell MK. Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT): protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2015;16:484.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):516–27.CrossRef Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):516–27.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Gargon E, Crew R, Burnside G, Williamson PR. Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:110–20.CrossRef Gargon E, Crew R, Burnside G, Williamson PR. Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:110–20.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Harman NL, Bruce IA, Callery P, Tierney S, Sharif MO, O’Brien K, et al. MOMENT – Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2013;14(1):70.CrossRef Harman NL, Bruce IA, Callery P, Tierney S, Sharif MO, O’Brien K, et al. MOMENT – Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2013;14(1):70.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manag. 2004;42(1):15–29.CrossRef Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manag. 2004;42(1):15–29.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes: protocol for a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006682-e.CrossRef Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes: protocol for a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006682-e.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.CrossRef Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wegwarth O, Wind S, Goebel E, Spies C, Meerpohl JJ, Schmucker C, et al. Educating pharmacists on the risks of strong opioids with descriptive and simulated experience risk formats: a randomized controlled trial. MDM Policy Pract. 2021;6(2):23814683211042830.PubMedPubMedCentral Wegwarth O, Wind S, Goebel E, Spies C, Meerpohl JJ, Schmucker C, et al. Educating pharmacists on the risks of strong opioids with descriptive and simulated experience risk formats: a randomized controlled trial. MDM Policy Pract. 2021;6(2):23814683211042830.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Coyle M GKPO. A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context? PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242239. Coyle M GKPO. A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context? PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242239.
22.
go back to reference Howick J. The philosophy of evidence-based medicine. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.CrossRef Howick J. The philosophy of evidence-based medicine. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Bala A, Nguyen HMT, Hellstrom WJG. Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction: a literature review. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6(1):29–34.CrossRef Bala A, Nguyen HMT, Hellstrom WJG. Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction: a literature review. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6(1):29–34.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hauben M, Aronson JK. Paradoxical reactions: under-recognized adverse effects of drugs. Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):970.CrossRef Hauben M, Aronson JK. Paradoxical reactions: under-recognized adverse effects of drugs. Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):970.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Tecce JJ, Cole JO. Amphetamine effects in man: paradoxical drowsiness and lowered electrical brain acitivity (CNV). Science. 1974;185(4149):451–3.CrossRef Tecce JJ, Cole JO. Amphetamine effects in man: paradoxical drowsiness and lowered electrical brain acitivity (CNV). Science. 1974;185(4149):451–3.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey
Authors
Martina Svobodova
Nina Jacob
Kerry Hood
Katie Gillies
Rachel Hale
Jennifer Bostock
Peter Bower
Adrian Edwards
Penelope Farthing
Sarah Rawlinson
Shaun Treweek
Jeremy Howick
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06780-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue