Patient autonomy and shared decision-making in the context of clinical trial participation

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Fabio Dennstädt, Paul Martin Putora, Thomas Iseli, Theresa Treffers, Cédric Panje, Galina Farina Fischer
{"title":"Patient autonomy and shared decision-making in the context of clinical trial participation","authors":"Fabio Dennstädt,&nbsp;Paul Martin Putora,&nbsp;Thomas Iseli,&nbsp;Theresa Treffers,&nbsp;Cédric Panje,&nbsp;Galina Farina Fischer","doi":"10.1111/eci.14291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to explore how incorporating shared decision-making (SDM) can address recruitment challenges in clinical trials. Specifically, it examines how SDM can align the trial process with patient preferences, enhance patient autonomy and increase active patient participation. Additionally, it identifies potential conflicts between SDM and certain clinical trial aspects, such as randomization or blinding, and proposes solutions to mitigate these issues.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a comprehensive review of existing literature on patient recruitment challenges in clinical trials and the role of SDM in addressing these challenges. We analysed case studies and trial reports to identify common obstacles and assess the effectiveness of SDM in improving patient accrual. Additionally, we evaluated three proposed solutions: adequate trial design, communication skill training and patient decision aids.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Our review indicates that incorporating SDM can significantly enhance patient recruitment by promoting patient autonomy and engagement. SDM encourages physicians to adopt a more open and informative approach, which aligns the trial process with patient preferences and reduces psychological barriers such as fear and mental stress. However, implementing SDM can conflict with elements such as randomization and blinding, potentially complicating trial design and execution.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>The desire for patient autonomy and active engagement through SDM may clash with traditional clinical trial methodologies. To address these conflicts, we propose three solutions: redesigning trials to better accommodate SDM principles, providing communication skill training for physicians and developing patient decision aids. By focussing on patient wishes and emotions, these solutions can integrate SDM into clinical trials effectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Shared decision-making provides a framework that can promote patient recruitment and trial participation by enhancing patient autonomy and engagement. With proper implementation of trial design modifications, communication skill training and patient decision aids, SDM can support rather than hinder clinical trial execution, ultimately contributing to the advancement of evidence-based medicine.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":"54 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.14291","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.14291","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

This study aimed to explore how incorporating shared decision-making (SDM) can address recruitment challenges in clinical trials. Specifically, it examines how SDM can align the trial process with patient preferences, enhance patient autonomy and increase active patient participation. Additionally, it identifies potential conflicts between SDM and certain clinical trial aspects, such as randomization or blinding, and proposes solutions to mitigate these issues.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a comprehensive review of existing literature on patient recruitment challenges in clinical trials and the role of SDM in addressing these challenges. We analysed case studies and trial reports to identify common obstacles and assess the effectiveness of SDM in improving patient accrual. Additionally, we evaluated three proposed solutions: adequate trial design, communication skill training and patient decision aids.

Results

Our review indicates that incorporating SDM can significantly enhance patient recruitment by promoting patient autonomy and engagement. SDM encourages physicians to adopt a more open and informative approach, which aligns the trial process with patient preferences and reduces psychological barriers such as fear and mental stress. However, implementing SDM can conflict with elements such as randomization and blinding, potentially complicating trial design and execution.

Discussion

The desire for patient autonomy and active engagement through SDM may clash with traditional clinical trial methodologies. To address these conflicts, we propose three solutions: redesigning trials to better accommodate SDM principles, providing communication skill training for physicians and developing patient decision aids. By focussing on patient wishes and emotions, these solutions can integrate SDM into clinical trials effectively.

Conclusion

Shared decision-making provides a framework that can promote patient recruitment and trial participation by enhancing patient autonomy and engagement. With proper implementation of trial design modifications, communication skill training and patient decision aids, SDM can support rather than hinder clinical trial execution, ultimately contributing to the advancement of evidence-based medicine.

Abstract Image

参与临床试验时的患者自主权和共同决策。
目的:本研究旨在探讨共同决策(SDM)如何解决临床试验中的招募难题。具体来说,它探讨了 SDM 如何使试验过程符合患者的偏好、增强患者的自主性并提高患者的参与积极性。此外,它还指出了 SDM 与随机化或盲法等某些临床试验方面的潜在冲突,并提出了缓解这些问题的解决方案:我们对有关临床试验中患者招募挑战以及 SDM 在应对这些挑战中的作用的现有文献进行了全面回顾。我们分析了案例研究和试验报告,以确定常见的障碍,并评估 SDM 在改善患者招募方面的效果。此外,我们还评估了三种建议的解决方案:充分的试验设计、沟通技巧培训和患者决策辅助工具:我们的研究表明,通过促进患者的自主性和参与度,SDM 可以显著提高患者招募率。SDM 鼓励医生采用更开放、信息更丰富的方法,使试验过程符合患者的偏好,减少恐惧和精神压力等心理障碍。然而,实施 SDM 可能会与随机化和盲法等要素发生冲突,从而可能使试验设计和执行复杂化:讨论:通过 SDM 实现患者自主和积极参与的愿望可能与传统的临床试验方法相冲突。为了解决这些冲突,我们提出了三种解决方案:重新设计试验以更好地适应 SDM 原则、为医生提供沟通技巧培训以及开发患者决策辅助工具。通过关注患者的意愿和情感,这些解决方案可以有效地将 SDM 纳入临床试验:结论:共同决策提供了一个框架,可通过提高患者的自主性和参与度来促进患者招募和试验参与。通过适当实施试验设计修改、沟通技巧培训和患者决策辅助工具,SDM 可以支持而不是阻碍临床试验的执行,最终促进循证医学的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.60%
发文量
192
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCI considers any original contribution from the most sophisticated basic molecular sciences to applied clinical and translational research and evidence-based medicine across a broad range of subspecialties. The EJCI publishes reports of high-quality research that pertain to the genetic, molecular, cellular, or physiological basis of human biology and disease, as well as research that addresses prevalence, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of disease. We are primarily interested in studies directly pertinent to humans, but submission of robust in vitro and animal work is also encouraged. Interdisciplinary work and research using innovative methods and combinations of laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Several categories of manuscripts (for detailed description see below) are considered: editorials, original articles (also including randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses), reviews (narrative reviews), opinion articles (including debates, perspectives and commentaries); and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信