ā†“ Skip to main content

Staff experiences of closing out a clinical trial involving withdrawal of treatment: qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Staff experiences of closing out a clinical trial involving withdrawal of treatment: qualitative study
Published in
Trials, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1813-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Lawton, David White, David Rankin, Jackie Elliott, Carolin Taylor, Cindy Cooper, Simon Heller, Nina Hallowell

Abstract

The ending of a clinical trial may be challenging, particularly if staff are required to withdraw the investigated treatment(s); however, this aspect of trial work is surprisingly under-researched. To address this gap, we explored the experiences of staff involved in closing out a trial that entailed withdrawal of treatment (insulin pumps) from some patients. Interviews were conducted with nā€‰=ā€‰22 staff, recruited from seven trial sites. Data were analysed thematically. Staff described a myriad of ethical and emotional challenges at closeout, many of which had been unforeseen when the trial began. A key challenge for staff was that, while patients gave their agreement to participate on the understanding that pump treatment could be withdrawn, they often found themselves benefitting from this regimen in ways they could not have foreseen. Hence, as the trial progressed, patients became increasingly anxious about withdrawal of treatment. This situation forced staff to consider whether the consent patients had given at the outset remained valid; it also presented them with a dilemma at closeout because many of those who had wanted to remain on a pump did not meet the clinical criteria required for post-trial funding. When deciding whether to withdraw treatment, staff not only had to take funding pressures and patient distress into account, but they also found themselves caught between an ethic of Hippocratic individualism and one of utilitarianism. These conflicting pressures and ethical considerations resulted in staff decision-making varying across the sites, an issue that some described as a further source of ethical unease. Staff concluded that, had there been more advanced planning and discussion, and greater accountability to an ethics committee, some of the challenges they had confronted at closeout could have been lessened or even prevented. The same kinds of ethical issues that may vex staff at the beginning of a trial (e.g. patients having unrealistic expectations of trial participation; staff experiencing conflicts between research and clinical roles) may re-present themselves at the end. To safeguard the wellbeing of staff and patients, greater planning, coordination and ethical oversight should go into the closeout of trials involving withdrawal of treatment(s). International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ISRCTN61215213 . Registered on 11 May 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Psychology 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 28 34%