A qualitative investigation of reasoning behind decisions to decline participation in a research intervention: A study-within-a-trial

Christopher P Dwyer, Anusha Moses, Fionnuala M Rogers, Dympna Casey, Robert Joyce, Sinéad M Hynes, Christopher P Dwyer, Anusha Moses, Fionnuala M Rogers, Dympna Casey, Robert Joyce, Sinéad M Hynes

Abstract

The current study-within-a-trial explored individuals' decisions to decline participation in research trialling a chronic illness-focused therapy (i.e. multiple sclerosis). Four themes were identified from seven semi-structured interviews with participation decliners and were confirmed by the host trial's Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) panel: acknowledgement of the value of research; 'fit' of the study; misinterpretation of participant information; and 'ignorance is bliss' - discussed in light of theory and research. This study-within-a-trial extends research on trial recruitment and participation decline; while also suggesting that PPI can be utilised in both a practical and impactful manner.

Keywords: cognitive occupation-based programme for people living with multiple sclerosis (COB-MS); decliner; patient & public involvement; recruitment; study-within-a-trial.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Arfken CL, Balon R. (2011) Declining participation in research studies. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 80(6): 325–328.
    1. Barnes M, Wiles N, Morrison J, et al.. (2012) Exploring patients’ reasons for declining contact in a cognitive behavioural therapy randomised controlled trial in primary care. British Journal of General Practice 62(598): e371–e377.
    1. Beijers RJ, van Den Borst B, Newman AB, et al.. (2016) A multidimensional risk score to predict all-cause hospitalization in community-dwelling older individuals with obstructive lung disease. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 17(6): 508–513.
    1. Blanch DC, Rudd RE, Wright E, et al.. (2008) Predictors of refusal during a multi-step recruitment process for a randomized controlled trial of arthritis education. Patient Education and Counseling 73(2): 280–285.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. (2020) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology. Epub ahead of print 12 August 2020. DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
    1. Canvin K, Jacoby A. (2006) Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial. Trials 7(1): 32.
    1. Carey MA. (2016) Focus groups—What is the same, what is new, what is next? Qualitative Health Research 26(6): 731–733.
    1. Cohen-Mansfield J. (2003) Consent and refusal in dementia research: Conceptual and practical considerations. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 17: S17–S25.
    1. Crocker J, Rees S, Locock L, et al.. (2018. a) # 3 PIRRIST: A patient and public involvement (PPI) intervention to enhance recruitment and retention in surgical trials (oral presentation). International Journal of Surgery 59: S1–S2.
    1. Crocker J, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, et al.. (2018. b) Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 363: k4738.
    1. Dwyer CP, Alvarez-Iglesias A, Joyce R, et al.. (2020) Evaluating the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a Cognitive Occupation-Based programme for people with Multiple Sclerosis (COB-MS): Protocol for a feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial. Trials 21(1): 1–12.
    1. Hariton E, Locascio JJ. (2018) Randomised controlled trials. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 125(13): 1716.
    1. Harrison JM, Jung M, Lennie TA, et al.. (2016) Refusal to participate in heart failure studies: Do age and gender matter? Journal of Clinical Nursing 25(7-8): 983–991.
    1. Huang GD, Bull J, Johnston McKee K, et al.. (2018) Clinical trials recruitment planning: A proposed framework from the clinical trials transformation initiative. Contemporary Clinical Trials 66: 74–79.
    1. Hughes-Morley A, Young B, Hempel RJ, et al.. (2016) What can we learn from trial decliners about improving recruitment? Qualitative study. Trials 17(1): 494.
    1. Langford AT, Resnicow K, Dimond EP, et al.. (2014) Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute’s Community Cancer Centers Program. Cancer 120(6): 877–884.
    1. Mays N, Pope C. (2000) Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 320(7226): 50–52.
    1. Moynihan C, Lewis R, Hall E, et al.. (2012) The patient deficit model overturned: A qualitative study of patients’ perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011). Trials 13(1): 228.
    1. Mundy J, Stansfeld J, Orrell M, et al.. (2020) Reasons for nonparticipation in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia randomised controlled trial of a dyadic occupational therapy intervention: An interview study. SAGE open medicine 8: 2050312120958926.
    1. NVivo 11. (2015) NVivo qualitative data analysis software: QSR International Pty Ltd., Version 11.
    1. Parker A, Tritter J. (2006) Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 29(1): 23–37.
    1. Silverman D. (2013) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19(6): 349–357.
    1. Willig C, Rogers WS. (eds) (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: SAGE.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel