Cargando…

Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials face major barriers such as under-enrollment and selective enrollment, which threaten study completion and undermine validity and generalizability. Thus, we conducted a prospective preference assessment (PPA) prior to commencing the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hyung, Brian, Bicket, Mark C., Brull, Richard, Pazmino-Canizares, Janneth, Bozak, Didem, Ladha, Karim S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8895621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06123-0
_version_ 1784662971411070976
author Hyung, Brian
Bicket, Mark C.
Brull, Richard
Pazmino-Canizares, Janneth
Bozak, Didem
Ladha, Karim S.
author_facet Hyung, Brian
Bicket, Mark C.
Brull, Richard
Pazmino-Canizares, Janneth
Bozak, Didem
Ladha, Karim S.
author_sort Hyung, Brian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical trials face major barriers such as under-enrollment and selective enrollment, which threaten study completion and undermine validity and generalizability. Thus, we conducted a prospective preference assessment (PPA) prior to commencing the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial—a randomized controlled study comparing the outcomes of managing acute postoperative pain between opioid-sparing and opioid-based therapies. This PPA aimed to (1) determine the patients’ willingness to participate in the CARES trial, (2) identify the areas for improvement, and (3) assess the differences between willing and unwilling patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were recruited between August 2019 and February 2020 from two academic hospitals. A survey was administered to each patient consisting of (1) a vignette describing the trial, (2) an assessment of the patients’ understanding of the trial, (3) open-ended questions assessing the attitudes towards the trial, and (4) patient-completed questionnaires. Data were analyzed qualitatively with thematic analysis and quantitatively with the Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled and grouped based on the 6-point Likert scale into willing (4–6, 71%) and not willing (1–3, 29%) to participate in the CARES trial. There were no significant differences with respect to all variables: age, education, sex, visible minority status, previous research, previous surgery, regular use of pain medications, surgical concerns, previous discussions on pain management, significant pain within the past 3 months, and significant use of pain medication within the past month. Factors that motivated participation were contributing to scientific research (45%), altruism (29%), and improving personal pain (24%). Common discouraging factors were negative perceptions of opioids (29%), side effects (21%), being blinded to the study medication (21%), and poor pain management (19%). CONCLUSIONS: This PPA revealed that two key discouraging factors for patients were being blinded to the type of pain medication being taken and the potential for poor pain management as a consequence of participation. Modifications to improve patient acceptance of the CARES trial include ensuring sufficient rescue medicine and follow-up visits consistent with current standards of care for all patients, as well as patient education surrounding safe administration and side effects of the study medications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06123-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8895621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88956212022-03-10 Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial Hyung, Brian Bicket, Mark C. Brull, Richard Pazmino-Canizares, Janneth Bozak, Didem Ladha, Karim S. Trials Research BACKGROUND: Clinical trials face major barriers such as under-enrollment and selective enrollment, which threaten study completion and undermine validity and generalizability. Thus, we conducted a prospective preference assessment (PPA) prior to commencing the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial—a randomized controlled study comparing the outcomes of managing acute postoperative pain between opioid-sparing and opioid-based therapies. This PPA aimed to (1) determine the patients’ willingness to participate in the CARES trial, (2) identify the areas for improvement, and (3) assess the differences between willing and unwilling patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were recruited between August 2019 and February 2020 from two academic hospitals. A survey was administered to each patient consisting of (1) a vignette describing the trial, (2) an assessment of the patients’ understanding of the trial, (3) open-ended questions assessing the attitudes towards the trial, and (4) patient-completed questionnaires. Data were analyzed qualitatively with thematic analysis and quantitatively with the Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled and grouped based on the 6-point Likert scale into willing (4–6, 71%) and not willing (1–3, 29%) to participate in the CARES trial. There were no significant differences with respect to all variables: age, education, sex, visible minority status, previous research, previous surgery, regular use of pain medications, surgical concerns, previous discussions on pain management, significant pain within the past 3 months, and significant use of pain medication within the past month. Factors that motivated participation were contributing to scientific research (45%), altruism (29%), and improving personal pain (24%). Common discouraging factors were negative perceptions of opioids (29%), side effects (21%), being blinded to the study medication (21%), and poor pain management (19%). CONCLUSIONS: This PPA revealed that two key discouraging factors for patients were being blinded to the type of pain medication being taken and the potential for poor pain management as a consequence of participation. Modifications to improve patient acceptance of the CARES trial include ensuring sufficient rescue medicine and follow-up visits consistent with current standards of care for all patients, as well as patient education surrounding safe administration and side effects of the study medications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06123-0. BioMed Central 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8895621/ /pubmed/35246214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06123-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hyung, Brian
Bicket, Mark C.
Brull, Richard
Pazmino-Canizares, Janneth
Bozak, Didem
Ladha, Karim S.
Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
title Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
title_full Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
title_fullStr Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
title_full_unstemmed Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
title_short Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
title_sort prospective preference assessment for the comparison of analgesic regimen effectiveness and safety in surgery (cares) trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8895621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06123-0
work_keys_str_mv AT hyungbrian prospectivepreferenceassessmentforthecomparisonofanalgesicregimeneffectivenessandsafetyinsurgerycarestrial
AT bicketmarkc prospectivepreferenceassessmentforthecomparisonofanalgesicregimeneffectivenessandsafetyinsurgerycarestrial
AT brullrichard prospectivepreferenceassessmentforthecomparisonofanalgesicregimeneffectivenessandsafetyinsurgerycarestrial
AT pazminocanizaresjanneth prospectivepreferenceassessmentforthecomparisonofanalgesicregimeneffectivenessandsafetyinsurgerycarestrial
AT bozakdidem prospectivepreferenceassessmentforthecomparisonofanalgesicregimeneffectivenessandsafetyinsurgerycarestrial
AT ladhakarims prospectivepreferenceassessmentforthecomparisonofanalgesicregimeneffectivenessandsafetyinsurgerycarestrial