Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate

Authors: Laura Cuddihy, Jeremy Howick, Ellen Murphy, Frances Shiely

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Providing informed consent for trials requires providing trial participants with comprehensive information about the trial, including information about potential risks and benefits. It is required by the ethical principle of respecting patient autonomy. Our study examines the variation in the way information about potential trial benefits and harms is shared in participant information leaflets (PILs).

Methods

A total of 214 PILs and informed consent forms from clinical trials units (CTUs) and Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) in Ireland and the UK were assessed by two authors independently, to check the extent to which they adhered to seven recently developed principles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third.

Results

Usage of the seven principles varied widely between PILs regardless of the intended recipient or trial type. None of the PILs used more than four principles, and some (4%) used none. Twenty-seven per cent of PILs presented information about all known potential harms, whereas 45% presented information on all known potential benefits. Some PILs did not provide any potential harms or potential benefits (8%). There was variation in the information contained in adult and children PILs and across disease areas.

Conclusion

Significant variation exists in how potential trial benefits and harms are described to potential trial participants in PILs in our sample. Usage of the seven principles of good practice will promote consistency, ensure informed ethical decision-making and invoke trust and transparency. In the long term, a standardised PIL template is needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Treweek S, Miyakoda V, Burke D, Shiely F. Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists’ choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want. Trials. 2022;23(1):1–28.CrossRef Treweek S, Miyakoda V, Burke D, Shiely F. Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists’ choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want. Trials. 2022;23(1):1–28.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gelfand S. The nocebo effect and informed consent—taking autonomy seriously. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020;29(2):223–35.CrossRefPubMed Gelfand S. The nocebo effect and informed consent—taking autonomy seriously. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020;29(2):223–35.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
go back to reference British Medical Journal. The Nuremberg Code (1947). BMJ. 1996;313(7070):1448.CrossRef British Medical Journal. The Nuremberg Code (1947). BMJ. 1996;313(7070):1448.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.CrossRef World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency. Guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). London; 2018. Contract No.: EMA/CHMP/ICH/135/1995. European Medicines Agency. Guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). London; 2018. Contract No.: EMA/CHMP/ICH/135/1995.
10.
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):1–8.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):1–8.CrossRef
11.
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):1–8.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):1–8.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sustersic M, Gauchet A, Foote A, Bosson JL. How best to use and evaluate patient information leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):531–42.CrossRefPubMed Sustersic M, Gauchet A, Foote A, Bosson JL. How best to use and evaluate patient information leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):531–42.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Howick J. Unethical informed consent caused by overlooking poorly measured nocebo effects. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(9):590–4.CrossRefPubMed Howick J. Unethical informed consent caused by overlooking poorly measured nocebo effects. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(9):590–4.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Mondaini N, Gontero P, Giubilei G, Lombardi G, Cai T, Gavazzi A, et al. Finasteride 5 mg and sexual side effects: how many of these are related to a nocebo phenomenon? J Sex Med. 2007;4(6):1708–12.CrossRefPubMed Mondaini N, Gontero P, Giubilei G, Lombardi G, Cai T, Gavazzi A, et al. Finasteride 5 mg and sexual side effects: how many of these are related to a nocebo phenomenon? J Sex Med. 2007;4(6):1708–12.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Wise RA, Bartlett SJ, Brown ED, Castro M, Cohen R, Holbrook JT, et al. Randomized trial of the effect of drug presentation on asthma outcomes: the American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(3):436-44.e8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wise RA, Bartlett SJ, Brown ED, Castro M, Cohen R, Holbrook JT, et al. Randomized trial of the effect of drug presentation on asthma outcomes: the American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(3):436-44.e8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Varkey B. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pract. 2021;30(1):17–28.CrossRefPubMed Varkey B. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pract. 2021;30(1):17–28.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Neukirch N, Colagiuri B. The placebo effect, sleep difficulty, and side effects: a balanced placebo model. J Behav Med. 2015;38:273–83.CrossRefPubMed Neukirch N, Colagiuri B. The placebo effect, sleep difficulty, and side effects: a balanced placebo model. J Behav Med. 2015;38:273–83.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Colagiuri B, McGuinness K, Boakes RA, Butow PN. Warning about side effects can increase their occurrence: an experimental model using placebo treatment for sleep difficulty. J Psychopharmacol. 2012;26(12):1540–7.CrossRefPubMed Colagiuri B, McGuinness K, Boakes RA, Butow PN. Warning about side effects can increase their occurrence: an experimental model using placebo treatment for sleep difficulty. J Psychopharmacol. 2012;26(12):1540–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Aslaksen PM, Zwarg ML, Eilertsen H-IH, Gorecka MM, Bjørkedal E. Opposite effects of the same drug: reversal of topical analgesia by nocebo information. Pain. 2015;156(1):39–46.CrossRefPubMed Aslaksen PM, Zwarg ML, Eilertsen H-IH, Gorecka MM, Bjørkedal E. Opposite effects of the same drug: reversal of topical analgesia by nocebo information. Pain. 2015;156(1):39–46.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, & therapeutic optimism. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2003;25(1):11–6.CrossRef Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, & therapeutic optimism. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2003;25(1):11–6.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Doshi P, Hur P, Jones M, Albarmawi H, Jefferson T, Morgan DJ, et al. Informed consent to study purpose in randomized clinical trials of antibiotics, 1991 through 2011. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1452–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Doshi P, Hur P, Jones M, Albarmawi H, Jefferson T, Morgan DJ, et al. Informed consent to study purpose in randomized clinical trials of antibiotics, 1991 through 2011. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1452–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Manaï M, van Middendorp H, Veldhuijzen DS, Huizinga TW, Evers AW. How to prevent, minimize, or extinguish nocebo effects in pain: a narrative review on mechanisms, predictors, and interventions. Pain Rep. 2019;4(3):e699. Manaï M, van Middendorp H, Veldhuijzen DS, Huizinga TW, Evers AW. How to prevent, minimize, or extinguish nocebo effects in pain: a narrative review on mechanisms, predictors, and interventions. Pain Rep. 2019;4(3):e699.
23.
go back to reference Coleman E, O’Sullivan L, Crowley R, Hanbidge M, Driver S, Kroll T, et al. Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):1–11.CrossRef Coleman E, O’Sullivan L, Crowley R, Hanbidge M, Driver S, Kroll T, et al. Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):1–11.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Svobodova M, Jacob N, Hood K, Gillies K, Hale R, Bostock J, et al. Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey. Trials. 2022;23(1):863.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Svobodova M, Jacob N, Hood K, Gillies K, Hale R, Bostock J, et al. Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey. Trials. 2022;23(1):863.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Shiely F, Murphy E, Gilles K, Hood K, O’Sullivan L, Harman N, et al. Exploring the language of randomisation in PILs. HRB-TMRN Working Group Award 2021. Health Research Board Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB TMRN) 2017; 2021. Shiely F, Murphy E, Gilles K, Hood K, O’Sullivan L, Harman N, et al. Exploring the language of randomisation in PILs. HRB-TMRN Working Group Award 2021. Health Research Board Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB TMRN) 2017; 2021.
28.
go back to reference Howick J, Svobodova M, Treweek S, Jacob N, Gillies K, Bostock J, et al. Patient reported outcomes and recruitment rates following the introduction of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs): protocol for a meta-analysis. NIHR Open Res. 2023;3:29.CrossRef Howick J, Svobodova M, Treweek S, Jacob N, Gillies K, Bostock J, et al. Patient reported outcomes and recruitment rates following the introduction of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs): protocol for a meta-analysis. NIHR Open Res. 2023;3:29.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Berg SA, Moss JH. Anchoring and judgment bias: disregarding under uncertainty. Psychol Rep. 2022;125(5):2688–708.CrossRefPubMed Berg SA, Moss JH. Anchoring and judgment bias: disregarding under uncertainty. Psychol Rep. 2022;125(5):2688–708.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis LI, Chalarakis NG. Nocebo is the enemy, not placebo. A meta-analysis of reported side effects after placebo treatment in headaches. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(5):550–61.CrossRefPubMed Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis LI, Chalarakis NG. Nocebo is the enemy, not placebo. A meta-analysis of reported side effects after placebo treatment in headaches. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(5):550–61.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Coyle M, Gillies K. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coyle M, Gillies K. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Bjorklund M, Shiely F, Gillies K. Information about dissemination of trial results in patient information leaflets for clinicals trials in the UK and Ireland: the what and the when. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5):e0268898.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bjorklund M, Shiely F, Gillies K. Information about dissemination of trial results in patient information leaflets for clinicals trials in the UK and Ireland: the what and the when. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5):e0268898.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Shiely F, Daly A. Trial lay summaries were not fit for purpose. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:105–12.CrossRefPubMed Shiely F, Daly A. Trial lay summaries were not fit for purpose. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:105–12.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate
Authors
Laura Cuddihy
Jeremy Howick
Ellen Murphy
Frances Shiely
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08087-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Trials 1/2024 Go to the issue