Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Trials. 2019 May 27;20(1):289. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3373-9.
While a growing body of research has explored why people take part in clinical trials, this research has not considered how people's understandings, motivations and agendas might influence their conduct during a trial. This is an important area of enquiry because it is now widely recognised that an intervention might lead to different clinical outcomes when delivered as part of a trial than when implemented in routine clinical practice; however, the reasons for this are not fully understood.
METHODS/DESIGN: We interviewed 24 individuals who took part in a trial of an innovative health technology under development for people with type 1 diabetes which automatically regulates blood glucose: the closed-loop system. Participants were interviewed following randomisation to a closed-loop and at trial closeout.
Participants provided complex agendas for taking part in which altruistic and self-interested considerations were often inseparable. Many described belonging to a wider diabetes community and being beneficiaries of others' participation in research and how this had given rise to attendant citizenship obligations. Participants also shared the excitement and pride they experienced from contributing to research which situated them at the forefront of technological innovation and enabled them to present themselves to others, by virtue of their trial participation, as ambassadors of hope and research pioneers. Given their desire to support the progression of a potentially life-changing technology, and be part of that innovation, participants, at follow-up, described having made extra effort during the trial. Specifically, participants described having been more focused on their diabetes management to help create conditions in which the closed-loop could work most effectively to optimize their blood glucose control.
Our findings contribute a new dimension to understandings of trial effects; specifically, we argue that, to aid interpretation of trial outcomes, participants' understandings and motivations for participation need to be considered. We highlight the potential pertinence of our findings in the contemporary era of bio-citizenship where, increasingly, people are driving research agendas and see themselves as co-producers of knowledge. We also recommend a new concept be introduced into the literature-'the altruselfish agenda'-to recognise potential inseparability of self-interested and altruistic motivations.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02523131 . Registered on 14 August 2015.
尽管越来越多的研究探讨了人们参与临床试验的原因,但这些研究并未考虑人们的理解、动机和议程如何影响他们在试验中的行为。这是一个重要的研究领域,因为现在人们广泛认识到,一种干预措施在作为试验的一部分实施时可能会导致不同的临床结果,而在常规临床实践中实施时则可能会导致不同的临床结果;然而,其原因尚未完全了解。
方法/设计:我们采访了 24 名参与 1 型糖尿病创新健康技术试验的个体,该技术正在开发中,可自动调节血糖:闭环系统。参与者在随机分配到闭环系统和试验结束时接受了采访。
参与者提供了复杂的参与议程,其中利他主义和自身利益的考虑往往是不可分割的。许多人描述了自己属于更广泛的糖尿病社区,并从他人参与研究中受益,这使他们产生了相应的公民义务。参与者还分享了他们参与研究的兴奋和自豪之情,他们将自己置于技术创新的前沿,使他们能够通过参与试验,将自己展示为希望的使者和研究先驱。由于他们渴望支持一种具有潜在变革性的技术的发展,并成为这一创新的一部分,参与者在随访时描述了在试验期间付出了额外的努力。具体来说,参与者描述说,他们更加专注于自己的糖尿病管理,以帮助创造条件,使闭环系统能够最有效地工作,以优化他们的血糖控制。
我们的研究结果为理解试验效果提供了一个新的维度;具体而言,我们认为,为了帮助解释试验结果,需要考虑参与者参与的理解和动机。我们强调了我们的研究结果在当代生物公民身份时代的潜在相关性,在这个时代,越来越多的人推动着研究议程,并将自己视为知识的共同创造者。我们还建议在文献中引入一个新概念——“利他主义议程”,以认识到自身利益和利他主义动机的潜在不可分割性。
ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02523131。于 2015 年 8 月 14 日注册。