The Library

Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials : systematic review and qualitative study

Tools

Raftery, James, Professor, Bryant, Jackie, 1951-, Powell, John, Kerr, C. and Hawker, S.. (2008) Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials : systematic review and qualitative study. Health Technology Assessment, Vol.12 (No.10). pp. 1-128. ISSN 1366-5278

Preview

Text
WRAP_Powell_Payment_healthcare_professionals.pdf - Published Version
Download (582Kb) | Preview

Preview

Text (Coversheet)
WRAP_coversheet_Powell_Payment_healthcare_professionals.pdf - Supplemental Material
Download (51Kb) | Preview

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta12100

Abstract

Objectives: To review UK guidelines regarding the use of financial incentives for healthcare professionals to become involved in clinical trials, and to survey perceptions and current practice. Data sources: Electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2006. Interviews were held with NHS healthcare professionals, research managers from the pharmaceutical industry and members of the public. Review methods: From the searches, 634 identified studies were assessed for inclusion in the systematic review, but only three met the criteria for data extraction. Fifty-eight individuals were interviewed: 38 chief investigators, six non-research active clinicians, eight public and six pharmaceutical managers. Investigators were selected from those funded by the HTA Programme, the other by 'snowballing' and personal contact. Results: The evidence from the literature was limited and inconclusive. In UK guidelines, the issues around payments to clinicians or patients were implied rather than stated, usually linked to discussion of conflict of interest and disclosure of any such conflicts. Developments in NHS research governance had led to increased transparency in all payments for research participation and for payments to be made to NHS Trusts rather than individual clinicians. While reimbursement of costs incurred by research was strongly supported by the interviewees, payments to incentivise recruitment were not. A code of practice was suggested for payments in publicly funded trials, which was closely linked to the principles of Good Clinical Practice in research. Factors such as interest in the topic, scope for patient benefit and good communication were considered more important than payment. Interviews with the general public indicated low levels of awareness of the existence of payments to clinicians linked to patient recruitment in trials, and unanimous support for full disclosure. Interviews with managers in the pharmaceutical industry showed greater familiarity with payments for research involvement. GPs were seen as the only group for whom scope existed for individual payments. Concerns were expressed by the pharmaceutical company interviewees at the rising cost of research and unnecessary bureaucracy. Conclusions: The ethical stances outlined in Good Clinical Practice in research were widely endorsed by the three groups interviewed. These allow reasonable payments to clinicians, subject to disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest. The potential for incentivising clinicians to recruit was limited as any payments should be based on the cost of inputs and should not be made to individuals but to their host organisation. NHS professionals were concerned that payments could damage the quality of research and also considered full disclosure to patients as challenging. Patients and members of the public favoured full disclosure and payment of expenses to patients involved in research. Pharmaceutical company interviewees viewed payment to the NHS for all research activities as normal and highly regulated. They complained that the prices charged were high and so variable that they required benchmarking. Considerable scope exists for compiling data on the factors that help and hinder the progress of clinical trials and also for experimenting with different incentives to encourage involvement in clinical research. Further research should focus on improved reporting of those organisational aspects of trials that are known to affect recruitment; retrospective analysis of the factors associated with different levels of recruitment to RCTs; prospective comparative research on trial recruitment; qualitative research on participants' experiences of being involved in different kinds of trials, and proposals to include within trials experiments with payments methods.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Clinical trials -- Methodology, Medical fees
Journal or Publication Title:	Health Technology Assessment
Publisher:	NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
ISSN:	1366-5278
Date:	April 2008
Volume:	Vol.12
Number:	No.10
Page Range:	pp. 1-128
Identification Number:	10.3310/hta12100
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (Great Britain)
References:	1. Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(20). 2. Charlson ME, Horwitz RI. Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation. BMJ 1984;289:1281–4. 3. Jack WJ, Chetty U, Rodger A. Recruitment to a prospective breast conservation trial: why are so few patients randomised? BMJ 1990;301:83–5. 4. Benson AB, Pregler JP, Bean JA, Rademaker AW, Eshler B, Anderson K. Oncologists’ reluctance to accrue patients onto clinical trials: an Illinois Cancer Center study. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:2067–75. 5. Tognoni G, Alli C, Avanzini F, Bettelli G, Colombo F, Corse R, et al. Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ 1991;303: 969–71. 6. Peto V, Coulter A, Bond A. Factors affecting general practitioners’ recruitment of patients into a prospective study. Fam Pract 1993;10:207–11. 7. Fayter D, McDaid C, Ritchie G, Stirk L, Eastwood A. Systematic review of barriers, modifiers and benefits involved in participation in cancer trials. Report No. 31. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2006. 8. Silagy CA, Carson NE. Factors affecting the level of interest and activity in primary care research among general practitioners. Fam Pract 1989;6:173–6. 9. Bell-Syer SEM, Klaber Moffat JA. Recruiting patients to randomised trials in primary care: principles and case study. Fam Pract 2000;17: 187–91. 10. van der Windt DA, Koes BW, van Aarst M, Heemskerk MA, Bouter LM. Practical aspects of conducting a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care: patient recruitment and outcome assessment. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:371–4. 11. Emanuel EJ, Schnipper LE, Kamin DY, Levinson J, Lichter AS. The costs of conducting clinical research. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4145–50. 12. Asch S, Connor SE, Hamilton EG, Fox SA. Problems in recruiting community-based physicians for health services research. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:591–9. 13. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Recruiting human subjects. Pressures in industry-sponsored clinical research. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. 14. Le Grand J. Motivation, agency and public policy. Of knights & knaves, pawns & queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. 15. Croughan M. Factors influencing physician participation in practice-based research network studies: a call for further research. J Fam Pract 2001; 50:978–9. 16. Ross S, Grant AM, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Russell IT, Prescott RJ. Barriers to participation in randomised clinical trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1143–56. 17. Rendell JM, Merrit RK, Geddes JR. Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2). 18. Mapstone J, Elbourne D, Roberts I. Strategies to improve recruitment to research studies. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Chichester: Wiley; 2004. 19. DuRant RH. Checklist for the evaluation of research articles. J Adolesc Health 1994;309:709–13. 20. de Wit NJ, Quartero AO, Zuithoff AP, Numans ME. Participation and successful patient recruitment in primary care. J Fam Pract 2001;50:976–81. 21. Hjorth M, Holmberg E, Rodjer S, Taube A, Westin J. Physicians’ attitudes toward clinical trials and their relationship to patient accrual in a Nordic multicenter study on myeloma. Control Clin Trials 1996;17:372–86. 22. Pearl A, Wright S, Gamble G, Doughty R, Sharpe N. Randomised trials in general practice – a New Zealand experience in recruitment. N Z Med J 2003;116:681–7. 23. Quartero AO, Numans ME, de Melker RA, Hoes AW, de Wit NJ. Dyspepsia in primary care: prokinetic therapy or acid suppression, a randomised clinical trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36:942–7. 24. Wright S, Doughty R, Pearl A. The use of brain natriuretic peptide in the diagnosis of heart failure in the community: a randomised controlled effectiveness study. Eur Heart J 2002;23 (Suppl):516. 25. The Nordic Myeloma Study Group. Interferon-alfa- 2b added to melphalan–prednisone for initial and maintenance treatment in multiple myeloma: a randomised, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:212–22. 26. Lifton R.J. The Nazi doctors. Medical killing and psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books. 1986. 27. European Commission. Directive 2000/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Brussels: European Commission; 2000. 28. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Description of the medicines for human use (clinical trials) regulations. London: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regular Agency; 2004. 29. DeRenzo EG. Coercion in the recruitment and retention of human research subjects, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicianinvestigators, and the moral courage of the IRB. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2000;22(2):1–5. 30. Caulfield T, Griener G. Conflicts of interest in clinical research: addressing the issue of physician remuneration. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30: 305–8. 31. Thompson D. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993;329:573–6. 32. Lemmens T, Singer PA. Bioethics for clinicians: 17. Conflict of interest in research, education and patient care. CMAJ 1998;159:960–5. 33. Beauchamp TL. Ethical issues in funding and monitoring university research. Bus Prof Ethics J 1992;11:5–16. 34. Coyle SL, Ethics and Human Rights Committee ACoP–ASoIM. Physician–industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ann Intern Med 2002;136: 396–402. 35. Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA Jr, Morse LJ, O’Bannon JM III, Goldrich MS, et al. Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 2002;287:78–84. 36. Rao JN, Cassia LJ. Ethics of undisclosed payments to doctors recruiting patients in clinical trials. BMJ 2002;325:36–7. 37. La Puma J, Stocking CB, Rhoades WD, Darling CM, Ferner R, Neuberger J, et al. Financial ties as part of informed consent to postmarketing research. BMJ 1995;310:1660–3. 38. Cox NH. Informed consent to postmarketing research. BMJ 1995;311:692. 39. Rothman KJ. The ethics of research sponsorship. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44 (Suppl. I):25–8S. 40. Ferguson C. Payment of financial incentives to GPs may invalidate informed consent process. BMJ 1998;316:75–6. 41. Roizen R. Why I oppose drug company payment of physician/investigators on a per patient/subject basis. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 1988;10:9–10. 42. Foy R, Parry J, McAvoy B. Clinical trials in primary care. targeted payments for trials might help improve recruitment and quality. BMJ 1998;317: 1168–9. 43. Lemmens T, Miller PB. The human subjects trade: ethical and legal issues surrounding recruitment incentives. J Law Med Ethics 2003;31:398–418. 44. Grimes DA, Hubacher D, Nanda K, Schulz KF, Moher D, Altman DG. The good clinical practice guideline: a bronze standard for clinical research. Lancet 2005;366:172–4. 45. General Medical Council. Guidance for doctors. Research: the role and responsibilities of doctors. London: General Medical Council; 2002. 46. ABPI. Code of practice for the pharmaceutical industry. London: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; 2006. 47. Guidance for R&D managers in NHS Trusts and Clinical Research Departments in the pharmaceutical industry. London: Department of Health; 2001. 48. Department of Health. National Health Service income generation – best practice: Revised guidance on income generation in the NHS. London: Department of Health; 2006. 49. ABPI. Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force, Clinical Research Report updated version of the Clinical Research Section (Section VI) of the Task Force Final Report. London: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; 2001. 50. Department of Health. Commercial sponsorship – ethical standards for the NHS, 2000. London: Department of Health; 2000. 51. Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. 2nd ed. London: Department of Health; 2005. 52. British Medical Association. British Medical Association – ethical considerations. London: British Medical Association; 2006. 53. Department of Health. New measures to better protect clinical trials patients. London: Department of Health; 2004. 54. Department of Health. Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees. London: Department of Health; 2005. 55. Department of Health. Improved pathway for health research. London: Department of Health; 2005. 56. ABPI. The pharmaceutical industry and patient groups working together: ABPI guiding principles. London: Department of Health; 2006. 57. Medical Research Council. MRC clinical trials series, MRC guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. London: Medical Research Council; 1998. 58. Imperial College London CRO. Good clinical practice – 13 principles. London: Imperial College; 2006. 59. Davies C, Anand P, Artigas L, Holloway J, McConway K, Newman J, et al. Links between governance, incentives and outcomes: a review of the literature. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). London: NCCSDO; 2005. 60. NVivo qualitative data analysis software, version 2.0 [computer program]. 1999. 61. Vist GE, Hagen KB, Devereaux PJ, Bryant D, Kristoffersen DT, Oxman AD. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. The Cochrane Library 2007;(3). 62. Department of Health. Best Research for Best Health: A new national health research strategy. Report No. 272605. London: Department of Health; 2006. 63. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995;311:109–11. 64. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomised Trials: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663. 65. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman A, Burgess R, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. pp. 173–94. 66. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. In Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in healthcare. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 1999. pp. 1–101.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/46345