Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey

Abstract

Background The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective ‘nocebo’ harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced. Methods We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement. Results Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages. Conclusions Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.

Qualitative study of challenges with recruitment of hospitals into a cluster controlled trial of clinical decision support in Australia

“…Understanding the needs and values of stakeholders is viewed as critical for successful recruitment into a trial 27. A recent Delphi study recommended making clear to prospective participants not only the potential benefits and harms of trial participation but how these compare with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial 28…”

Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (II) – helping people decide

“…The consequences (potential benefits, harms and burdens) of participating (or not) will be the key issues on which a decision rests, and hence our emphasis on laying them out together and clearly (Svobodova et al, 2022).…”

“…The IDA would be a record of these and how they were resolved, putting the individual at the centre of the consent process. • • laying out the choices before the potential participant, and the consequence of this choices • The consequences (potential benefits, harms and burdens) of participating (or not) will be the key issues on which a decision rests, and hence our emphasis on laying them out together and clearly (Svobodova et al, 2022).…”

Consent and assent in paediatric practice: it’s the conversation that matters

“…Again, these should be drawn up during design involving patients and patient groups. Laid out like this, easier matching and comparison of their options would be possible to aid decision making 5…”