Under-recruitment regularly impedes clinical trials, leading to wasted resources and opportunity costs. Methods for designing trial participation strategies rarely consider behavior change theory.
Objective:
Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we identified factors important to participating in Huntington’s disease research and provide examples of how such a theory-informed approach can make specific suggestions about how to design targeted recruitment strategies.
Methods:
We identified a range of trial participation barriers and enablers based on interviews of key informants and implemented an online survey of members of the Huntington’s disease community, asking them to rate the extent to which different factors would affect likelihood to participate in a generic Huntington’s disease trial.
Results:
From 4,195 members, we received 323 responses and 243 completed surveys (323/4,195 or 8% participation, 243/323 or 75% completion). Respondents endorsed 9 barriers and 23 enablers relevant to trial participation. Most frequently endorsed barriers were travel to the study site (69%), worry about unknown side effects (65%), trial documents being difficult to understand (64%), and participation affecting other activities (49%). Enablers included optimism about likelihood of trial participation leading to a cure (98%), helping others (98%), contributing to science (97%), and having helpful people available to help with the participation decision (89%).
Conclusion:
Our theory-informed survey to identify barriers to and enablers of Huntington’s disease trial participation identified 32 factors, from 13 theoretical domains relevant to trial participation, and suggests effective approaches for improving trial participation and patient experience.
MestreT, FerreiraJ, CoelhoMM, RosaM, SampaioC. Therapeutic interventions for symptomatic treatment in Huntington’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD006456.
2.
MestreT, FerreiraJ, CoelhoMM, RosaM, SampaioC. Therapeutic interventions for disease progression in Huntington’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD006455.
3.
FerreiraJJ, RodriguesFB, DuarteGS, MestreTA, Bachoud-LeviAC, BentivoglioAR, et al. An MDS evidence-based review on treatments for Huntington’s disease. Mov Disord. 2022;37(1):25–35.
4.
GoodmanL, SiaC, CarnesR, VetterL, TaubmanF, VenutoCS, et al. Advocacy recruiting for Huntington’s disease clinical trials. PLoS Curr. 2011;3, RRN1230.
5.
KhalilH, QuinnL, van DeursenR, DawesH, PlayleR, RosserA, et al. What effect does a structured home-based exercise programme have on people with Huntington’s disease? A randomized, controlled pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(7):646–58.
6.
JulioF, BlancoR, CasanovaJP, D’AlessioB, De SchepperB, De SousaD, et al. Perceptions about research participation among individuals at risk and individuals with premanifest Huntington’s disease: A survey conducted by the European Huntington Association. J Pers Med. 2021;11(8).
7.
CotterK, SiskindCE, ShaSJ, Hanson-KahnAK. Positive attitudes and therapeutic misconception around hypothetical clinical trial participation in the Huntington’s disease community. J Huntingtons Dis. 2019;8(4):421–30.
8.
WilliamsRJ, TseT, DiPiazzaK, ZarinDA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database: Evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127242.
9.
UngerJM, CookE, TaiE, BleyerA. The role of clinical trial participation in cancer research: Barriers, evidence, and strategies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35, 185–98.
10.
FrewPM, HouSI, DavisM, ChanK, HortonT, ShusterJ, et al. The likelihood of participation in clinical trials can be measured: The Clinical Research Involvement Scales. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(10):1110–7.
WalshE, SheridanA. Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: A narrative review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;3, 23–31.
13.
BardakjianTM, NacziKF, Gonzalez-AlegreP. Attitudes of potential participants towards molecular therapy trials in Huntington’s disease. J Huntingtons Dis. 2019;8(1):79–85.
14.
BrehautJC, CarrollK, PresseauJ, RichardsDP, GordonJ, BenardA, et al. A patient-focused, theory-guided approach to survey design identified barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;132, 106–15.
15.
BrehautJC, CarrollK, GordonJ, PresseauJ, RichardsDP, FergussonDA, et al. Results from a theory-guided survey to support breast cancer trial participation: Barriers, enablers, and what to do about them. Curr Oncol. 2021;28(3):2014–28.
16.
CaneJ, O’ConnorD, MichieS. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):37.
17.
MichieS, JohnstonM, AbrahamC, LawtonR, ParkerD, WalkerA, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.
18.
FrenchSD, GreenSE, O’ConnorDA, McKenzieJE, FrancisJJ, MichieS, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7, 38.
19.
Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.
20.
JoffeS, CookEF, ClearyPD, ClarkJW, WeeksJC. Quality of informed consent: A new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer I. 2001;93, 139–47.
21.
DillmanDAMail and internet surveys: The tailored design. New YorkJohn Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2000.
22.
IBM SPSS Statistics. SPSS (version 26) 2019 [Available from: http://www.spss.com.
23.
TabachnickB, FidellL Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2001.
24.
BrehautJC, CarrollK, ElwynG, SaginurR, KimmelmanJ, ShojaniaK, et al. Informed consent documents do not encourage good -quality decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65, 708–24.
25.
BrehautJC, CarrollK, ElwynG, SaginurR, KimmelmanJ, ShojaniaK, et al. Elements of informed consent and decision quality were poorly correlated in informed consent documents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1472–80.
26.
AndersonKE, EberlyS, MarderKS, OakesD, KaysonE, YoungA, et al. The choice not to undergo genetic testing for Huntington disease: Results from the PHAROS study. Clin Genet. 2019;96(1):28–34.
27.
TassickerRJ, TeltscherB, TrembathMK, CollinsV, SheffieldLJ, ChiuE, et al. Problems assessing uptake of Huntington disease predictive testing and a proposed solution. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17(1):66–70.
28.
MorrisonPJ, Harding-LesterS, BradleyA. Uptake of Huntington disease predictive testing in a complete population. Clin Genet. 2011;80(3):281–6.
29.
HoAK, RobbinsAO, BarkerRA. Huntington’s disease patients have selective problems with insight. Mov Disord. 2006;21(3):385–9.
30.
KaurG, SmythRL, WilliamsonP. Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomized controlled trials. Trials. 2012;13, 218.
31.
KurtA, SemlerL, JacobyJ, JohnsonM, CareyvaB, StelbB, et al. Racial differences among factors associated with participation in clinical research trials. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2017;4, 827–36.
32.
MoorcraftSY, MarriottC, PeckittC, CunninghamD, ChauI, StarlingN, et al. Patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials and their views on aspects of cancer research: Results of a prospective patient survey. Trials. 2016;17, 17.
33.
GadegbekuCA, StillmanPK, HuffmanMD, JacksonJS, KusekJW, JamersonKA. Factors associated with enrollment of African Americans into a clinical trial: Results from the African American study of kidney disease and hypertension. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(6):837–42.
34.
JonesCW, BrazVA, McBrideSM, RobertsBW, Platts-MillsTF. Cross-sectional assessment of patient attitudes towards participation in clinical trials: Does making results publicly available matter?BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013649.
35.
DamschroderLJ, AronDC, KeithRE, KirshSR, AlexanderJA, LoweryJC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4, 50.
36.
BirkenSA, PowellBJ, PresseauJ, KirkMA, LorencattoF, GouldNJ, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):2.
