Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Unpacking the ‘black box of horrendousness’: a qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent

Authors: Victoria Shepherd, Kerenza Hood, Fiona Wood

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent encounter a range of ethical and methodological challenges, resulting in these populations frequently being excluded from research. Currently, there is little evidence regarding the nature and extent of these challenges, nor strategies to improve the design and conduct of such trials. This qualitative study explored researchers’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely with 26 researchers and healthcare professionals with experience in a range of roles, trial populations and settings across the UK. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

A number of inter-related barriers and facilitators were identified and mapped against key trial processes including during trial design decisions, navigating ethical approval, assessing capacity, identifying and involving alternative decision-makers and when revisiting consent. Three themes were identified: (1) the perceived and actual complexity of trials involving adults lacking capacity, (2) importance of having access to appropriate support and resources and (3) need for building greater knowledge and expertise to support future trials. Barriers to trials included the complexity of the legal frameworks, the role of gatekeepers, a lack of access to expertise and training, and the resource-intensive nature of these trials. The ability to conduct trials was facilitated by having prior experience with these populations, effective communication between research teams, public involvement contributions, and the availability of additional data to inform the trial. Participants also identified a range of context-specific recruitment issues and highlighted the importance of ‘designing in’ flexibility and the use of adaptive strategies which were especially important for trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants identified a need for better training and support.

Conclusions

Researchers encountered a number of barriers, including both generic and context or population-specific challenges, which may be reinforced by wider factors such as resource limitations and knowledge deficits. Greater access to expertise and training, and the development of supportive interventions and tailored guidance, is urgently needed in order to build research capacity in this area and facilitate the successful delivery of trials involving this under-served population.
Literature
1.
2.
Hickman RL, Daly BJ, Clochesy JM, O’Brien J, Leuchtag M. Leveraging the lived experience of surrogate decision makers of the seriously ill to develop a decision support intervention. Appl Nurs Res. 2016;30:67–9.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Lepping P, Stanly T, Turner J. Systematic review on the prevalence of lack of capacity in medical and psychiatric settings. Clin Med. 2015;15:337–43.CrossRef
4.
Hood K, Nuttall J, Gillespie D, Shepherd V, Wood F, Duncan D, et al. Probiotics for Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhoea (PAAD): a prospective observational study of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (including Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea) in care homes. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Cohen S, Sprung C, Sjokvist P, Lippert A, Ricou B, Baras M, et al. Communication of end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1215–21.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Carey IM, Hosking FJ, Harris T, DeWilde S, Beighton C, Cook DG. An evaluation of the effectiveness of annual health checks and quality of health care for adults with intellectual disability: an observational study using a primary care database. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5(25).
7.
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 Disabil Res. 2014;58:800–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
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):S105–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
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.PubMedCrossRef
10.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
13.
Mundi S, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M. Systematic review on the inclusion of patients with cognitive impairment in hip fracture trials: a missed opportunity? Can J Surg. 2014;57:E141–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Holcomb JB, Weiskopf R, Champion H, Gould SA, Sauer RM, Brasel K, et al. Challenges to effective research in acute trauma resuscitation: consent and endpoints. Shock. 2011;35:107–13.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Shepherd V. Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: the impact of research regulation on “evidence biased” medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:8.CrossRef
16.
Spaul SW, Hudson R, Harvey C, Macdonald H, Perez J. Exclusion criterion: learning disability. Lancet. 2020;395:e29.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Morciano M, Stokes J, Kontopantelis E, Hall I, Turner AJ. Excess mortality for care home residents during the first 23 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a national cohort study. BMC Med. 2021;19:71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Helfand BKI, Webb M, Gartaganis SL, Fuller L, Kwon C-S, Inouye SK. The exclusion of older persons from vaccine and treatment trials for coronavirus disease 2019—Missing the Target. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:1546.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Quinn CC, Adams AS, Magaziner JS, Gurwitz JH. Coronavirus disease 2019 and clinical research in U.S. nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69:1748–51.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Williamson EJ, McDonald HI, Bhaskaran K, Walker AJ, Bacon S, Davy S, et al. Risks of covid-19 hospital admission and death for people with learning disability: population based cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform. BMJ. 2021;374:n1592.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Medical Research Council. MRC Ethics Guide 2007: Medical research involving adults who cannot consent. London: MRC; 2007.
23.
24.
HMSO, London. Mental Capacity Act 2005. 2005.
25.
Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Statute Law Database; 2000.
26.
27.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
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;48(6):903–909. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ageing/​afz115.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods : integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2015.
35.
Health Research Authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency,. HRA and MHRA Joint statement on seeking consent by electronic methods (eConsent). 2018.
36.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13:201–16.CrossRef
39.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
40.
Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11:589–97.CrossRef
41.
Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: SAGE; 2013.
42.
43.
44.
Davies H, Shakur H, Padkin A, Roberts I, Slowther A-M, Perkins GD. Guide to the design and review of emergency research when it is proposed that consent and consultation be waived. Emerg Med J. 2014;31:794–5.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
47.
Paddock K, Woolfall K, Frith L, Watkins M, Gamble C, Welters I, et al. Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e048193.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Raven-Gregg T, Wood F, Shepherd V. Effectiveness of participant recruitment strategies for critical care trials: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Clin Trials. 2021;18:436–48.PubMedCrossRef
49.
50.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Brady MC, Fredrick A, Williams B. People with aphasia: capacity to consent, research participation and intervention inequalities. Int J Stroke. 2013;8:193–6.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Hamilton J, Ingham B, McKinnon I, Parr JR, Tam LY-C, Couteur AL. Mental capacity to consent to research? Experiences of consenting adults with intellectual disabilities and/or autism to research. Br. J Learn Disabil. 2017;45:230–7.CrossRef
53.
Dixon-Woods M, Angell EL. Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements? J Med Ethics. 2009;35:377–81.PubMedCrossRef
54.
55.
Karlawish JHT, Knopman D, Clark CM, Morris JC, Marson D, Whitehouse PJ, et al. Informed consent for Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2002;24:1–5.CrossRef
56.
57.
Fletcher JR, Lee K, Snowden S. Uncertainties when applying the mental capacity act in dementia research: a call for researcher experiences. Ethics Soc Welf. 2019;13:183–97.CrossRef
58.
Woods P, Flynn M, Monach P, Visnaw K, Schiller S, Holmberg E, et al. Implementation of documented and written informed consent for clinical trials of communicable diseases: Lessons learned, barriers, solutions, future directions identified during the conduct of a COVID-19 clinical trial. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;23:100804.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Webb J, Williams V, Gall M, Dowling S. Misfitting the research process: shaping qualitative research “in the field” to fit people living with dementia. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:1609406919895926.CrossRef
60.
Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:k4738.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Harrison N, Brundle C, Heaven A, Clegg A. The cost of community research—recruiting community-dwelling participants to a feasibility primary care cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22:332.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
National Institute for Health Research,. Best Research for Best Health: The Next Chapter. 2021.
63.
Shepherd V. Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: a decade in review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020;95:106054.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Giebel C, Roe B, Hodgson A, Britt D, Clarkson P. Effective public involvement in the HoST-D Programme for dementia home care support: From proposal and design to methods of data collection (innovative practice). Dementia. 2019;18:3173–86.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Hersh D, Israel M, Shiggins C. The ethics of patient and public involvement across the research process: towards partnership with people with aphasia. Aphasiology. 2021;0:1–27.CrossRef
66.
Paul C, Holt J. Involving the public in mental health and learning disability research: can we, should we, do we? J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24:570–9.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Raven-Gregg T, Shepherd V. Exploring the inclusion of under-served groups in trials methodology research: an example from ethnic minority populations’ views on deferred consent. Trials. 2021;22:589.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
69.
70.
71.
Rios D, Magasi S, Novak C, Harniss M. Conducting accessible research: including people with disabilities in public health, epidemiological, and outcomes studies. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:2137–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Unpacking the ‘black box of horrendousness’: a qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent
Authors
Victoria Shepherd
Kerenza Hood
Fiona Wood
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06422-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The effect of a loading dose of meropenem on outcomes of patients with sepsis treated by continuous renal replacement: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

A multimodal intervention to optimise antimicrobial use in residential aged care facilities (ENGAGEMENT): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Study protocol

OnTrack Chile for people with early psychosis: a study protocol for a Hybrid Type 1 trial

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

Study protocol

Comparison of the procedure time differences between hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric neoplasms: a study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial (Hybrid-G trial)

Study protocol

Nurse-led self-management support after organ transplantation—protocol of a multicentre, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial