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

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Study protocol

Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial

Authors: Victoria Shepherd, Fiona Wood, Katie Gillies, Adam Martin, Abby O’Connell, Kerenza Hood

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative ‘proxy’ decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid (‘Making decisions about research for others’) for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions.

Methods

This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation.

Discussion

This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed.

Trial registration

The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2022-2027. Nat Inst Health Care Res; 2022. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2022-2027. Nat Inst Health Care Res; 2022.
2.
go back to reference Department of Health and Social Care and W. Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery. 2021. Department of Health and Social Care and W. Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery. 2021.
3.
go back to reference Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21:694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21:694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Spong CY, Bianchi DW. Improving Public Health Requires Inclusion of Underrepresented Populations in Research. JAMA. 2018;319:337.CrossRefPubMed Spong CY, Bianchi DW. Improving Public Health Requires Inclusion of Underrepresented Populations in Research. JAMA. 2018;319:337.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Care Quality Commission. Monitoring the use of the mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in 2013/14. 2015. Care Quality Commission. Monitoring the use of the mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in 2013/14. 2015.
7.
go back to reference Feldman MA, Bosett J, Collet C, Burnham-Riosa P. Where are persons with intellectual disabilities in medical research? A survey of published clinical trials. J Intellect Disability Res. 2014;58:800–9.CrossRef Feldman MA, Bosett J, Collet C, Burnham-Riosa P. Where are persons with intellectual disabilities in medical research? A survey of published clinical trials. J Intellect Disability Res. 2014;58:800–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Herrera AP, Snipes SA, King DW, Torres-Vigil I, Goldberg DS, Weinberg AD. Disparate inclusion of older adults in clinical trials: priorities and opportunities for policy and practice change. Am J Public Health 2010;100 Suppl 1 Suppl 1:S105-S112. Herrera AP, Snipes SA, King DW, Torres-Vigil I, Goldberg DS, Weinberg AD. Disparate inclusion of older adults in clinical trials: priorities and opportunities for policy and practice change. Am J Public Health 2010;100 Suppl 1 Suppl 1:S105-S112.
9.
go back to reference Taylor JS, DeMers SM, Vig EK, Borson S. The Disappearing Subject: Exclusion of People with Cognitive Impairment and Dementia from Geriatrics Research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:413–9.CrossRefPubMed Taylor JS, DeMers SM, Vig EK, Borson S. The Disappearing Subject: Exclusion of People with Cognitive Impairment and Dementia from Geriatrics Research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:413–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Shepherd V. An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent. Trials. 2020;21:445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V. An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent. Trials. 2020;21:445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Hood K, Wood F. Unpacking the ‘Black Box of Horrendousness’: A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to Conducting Trials Involving Adults Lacking Capacity to Consent. Trials. 2022;23. Shepherd V, Hood K, Wood F. Unpacking the ‘Black Box of Horrendousness’: A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to Conducting Trials Involving Adults Lacking Capacity to Consent. Trials. 2022;23.
13.
go back to reference Woods S. Involving adults who lack capacity in research: ethical and legal challenges for the pre-hospital and emergency medicine context. J Paramedic Pract. 2016;8:499–505.CrossRef Woods S. Involving adults who lack capacity in research: ethical and legal challenges for the pre-hospital and emergency medicine context. J Paramedic Pract. 2016;8:499–505.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Evans CJ, Yorganci E, Lewis P, Koffman J, Stone K, Tunnard I, et al. Processes of consent in research for adults with impaired mental capacity nearing the end of life: systematic review and transparent expert consultation (MORECare_Capacity statement). BMC Med. 2020;18:221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Evans CJ, Yorganci E, Lewis P, Koffman J, Stone K, Tunnard I, et al. Processes of consent in research for adults with impaired mental capacity nearing the end of life: systematic review and transparent expert consultation (MORECare_Capacity statement). BMC Med. 2020;18:221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference The GenOSept National Coordinators. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Tridente A, Holloway PAH, Hutton P, Gordon AC, Mills GH, et al. Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience. BMC Medical Ethics. 2019;20. The GenOSept National Coordinators. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Tridente A, Holloway PAH, Hutton P, Gordon AC, Mills GH, et al. Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience. BMC Medical Ethics. 2019;20.
16.
go back to reference Shepherd V. Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: A decade in review. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2020;95:106054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V. Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: A decade in review. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2020;95:106054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 SI No.1031. 2004. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 SI No.1031. 2004.
18.
go back to reference HMSO, London. Mental Capacity Act 2005. 2005. HMSO, London. Mental Capacity Act 2005. 2005.
19.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, Sheehan M, Hood K. Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: a content analysis of participant information sheets for consultees and legal representatives in England and Wales. Trials. 2019;20:233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, Sheehan M, Hood K. Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: a content analysis of participant information sheets for consultees and legal representatives in England and Wales. Trials. 2019;20:233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Ciccone A, Sterzi R, Crespi V, Defanti CA, Pasetti C. Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Patient’s Point of View. CED. 2001;12:335–40. Ciccone A, Sterzi R, Crespi V, Defanti CA, Pasetti C. Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Patient’s Point of View. CED. 2001;12:335–40.
21.
go back to reference Demarquay G, Derex L, Nighoghossian N, Adeleine P, Philippeau F, Honnorat J, et al. Ethical Issues of Informed Consent in Acute Stroke. CED. 2005;19:65–8. Demarquay G, Derex L, Nighoghossian N, Adeleine P, Philippeau F, Honnorat J, et al. Ethical Issues of Informed Consent in Acute Stroke. CED. 2005;19:65–8.
23.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Hood K, Sheehan M, Griffith R, Wood F. ‘It’s a tough decision’: A qualitative study of proxy decision-making for research involving adults who lack capacity to consent in UK. Age and Ageing. 2019:1–7. Shepherd V, Hood K, Sheehan M, Griffith R, Wood F. ‘It’s a tough decision’: A qualitative study of proxy decision-making for research involving adults who lack capacity to consent in UK. Age and Ageing. 2019:1–7.
24.
go back to reference Iverson E, Celious A, Kennedy CR, Shehane E, Eastman A, Warren V, et al. Factors affecting stress experienced by surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients: Implications for nursing practice. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30:77–85.CrossRefPubMed Iverson E, Celious A, Kennedy CR, Shehane E, Eastman A, Warren V, et al. Factors affecting stress experienced by surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients: Implications for nursing practice. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30:77–85.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Sugarman J, Cain C, Wallace R, Welsh-Bohmer KA. How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:1110–9.CrossRefPubMed Sugarman J, Cain C, Wallace R, Welsh-Bohmer KA. How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:1110–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Mason S, Barrow H, Phillips A, Eddison G, Nelson A, Cullum N, et al. Brief report on the experience of using proxy consent for incapacitated adults. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:61–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mason S, Barrow H, Phillips A, Eddison G, Nelson A, Cullum N, et al. Brief report on the experience of using proxy consent for incapacitated adults. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:61–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Gillies K, Campbell MK. Development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial: a conceptual framework. Trials. 2019;20:401.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gillies K, Campbell MK. Development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial: a conceptual framework. Trials. 2019;20:401.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, Sheehan M, Hood K. Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, Sheehan M, Hood K. Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Campbell M, Christie J, Clarke M, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19:139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Campbell M, Christie J, Clarke M, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19:139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Madurasinghe VW, Bower P, Eldridge S, Collier D, Graffy J, Treweek S, et al. Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of ‘studies within a trial’ (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets. BMC Med. 2021;19:218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Madurasinghe VW, Bower P, Eldridge S, Collier D, Graffy J, Treweek S, et al. Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of ‘studies within a trial’ (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets. BMC Med. 2021;19:218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. MRC Developing and evaluating complex interventions. Med Res Council. 2006. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. MRC Developing and evaluating complex interventions. Med Res Council. 2006.
34.
go back to reference Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Fourth Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Fourth Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
36.
go back to reference Shepherd V. (Re) Conceptualising ‘good’ proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality. BMC Medical Ethics. 2022;23:75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V. (Re) Conceptualising ‘good’ proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality. BMC Medical Ethics. 2022;23:75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Wood F, Gillies K, O’Connell A, Martin A, Hood K. Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs). Trials. 2022;23:756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V, Wood F, Gillies K, O’Connell A, Martin A, Hood K. Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs). Trials. 2022;23:756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Madurasinghe VW. Sandra Eldridge on behalf of MRC START Group and Gordon Forbes on behalf of the START Expert Consensus Group. Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials. Trials. 2016;17:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Madurasinghe VW. Sandra Eldridge on behalf of MRC START Group and Gordon Forbes on behalf of the START Expert Consensus Group. Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials. Trials. 2016;17:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, et al. Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0150205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, et al. Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0150205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
go back to reference Coleman E, Arundel C, Clark L, Doherty L, Gillies K, Hewitt C, et al. Bah humbug! Association between sending Christmas cards to trial participants and trial retention: randomised study within a trial conducted simultaneously across eight host trials. BMJ. 2021;375:e067742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coleman E, Arundel C, Clark L, Doherty L, Gillies K, Hewitt C, et al. Bah humbug! Association between sending Christmas cards to trial participants and trial retention: randomised study within a trial conducted simultaneously across eight host trials. BMJ. 2021;375:e067742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
go back to reference Parker A, Arundel C, Mills N, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Donovan JL, et al. Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials: A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2022:26320843221106950. Parker A, Arundel C, Mills N, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Donovan JL, et al. Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials: A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2022:26320843221106950.
44.
go back to reference Martin-Kerry J, Parker A, Bower P, Watt I, Treweek S, Torgerson D, et al. SWATted away: the challenging experience of setting up a programme of SWATs in paediatric trials. Trials. 2019;20:141.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Martin-Kerry J, Parker A, Bower P, Watt I, Treweek S, Torgerson D, et al. SWATted away: the challenging experience of setting up a programme of SWATs in paediatric trials. Trials. 2019;20:141.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
go back to reference Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;n2061. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;n2061.
46.
go back to reference Health Research Authority. Applying a proportionate approach to the process of seeking consent. 2019. Health Research Authority. Applying a proportionate approach to the process of seeking consent. 2019.
47.
go back to reference Ooms A, Parsons S, Dutton S, Garrett A, Fordham B, Hing C, et al. SWAT 110: Printing the primary outcomE on Pink PapER versus standard paper to increase participant engagement to postal questionnaires (PEPPER). Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2022;3:49–54. Ooms A, Parsons S, Dutton S, Garrett A, Fordham B, Hing C, et al. SWAT 110: Printing the primary outcomE on Pink PapER versus standard paper to increase participant engagement to postal questionnaires (PEPPER). Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2022;3:49–54.
48.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Hood K, Gillies K, Wood F. Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale). Trials. 2022;23:843.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shepherd V, Hood K, Gillies K, Wood F. Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale). Trials. 2022;23:843.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Wood F, Robling M, Randell E, Hood K. Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER Study). 2021. Shepherd V, Wood F, Robling M, Randell E, Hood K. Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER Study). 2021.
Metadata
Title
Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial
Authors
Victoria Shepherd
Fiona Wood
Katie Gillies
Adam Martin
Abby O’Connell
Kerenza Hood
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06887-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue