Patient responses to passive enrollment into a large, pragmatic clinical trial: A qualitative content analysis.

Rozema EJ, Creekmur B, Musigdilok VV, Steltz J, Gould MK, Slatore CG. Patient responses to passive enrollment into a large, pragmatic clinical trial: A qualitative content analysis. Contemporary clinical trials. 2022 Oct 1; 121:106925.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 19-425 – Teachable Moment to Opt-out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT): A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Intervention

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: While passive enrollment or "opt-out" recruitment methods facilitate pragmatic clinical trials, they pose unique challenges, and it is unclear how participants feel about them. Here, we describe patient responses to passive enrollment into the Watch the Spot Trial, a pragmatic trial comparing two sets of guidelines for small lung nodule follow-up. METHODS: For this nested qualitative study, we analyzed participant-initiated calls and emails. We performed a qualitative content analysis, using a team-coding approach to identify reasons that eligible participants contacted the study team. We calculated the proportion of contacts containing each code, and how often each code coincided with study opt-outs and other codes. RESULTS: Of 23,412 eligible participants across seven sites, 1494 (6.4%) contacted the study team, with 1560 total contacts. Among the total contacts, the most common codes (i.e., reasons for contacting the team) were study opt-outs (n  =  614, 39.0%), clarification of study procedures (n  =  328, 21.0%), and unawareness of the nodule prior to research notification (n  =  244, 15.6%). The least common codes were concerns about sharing of protected health information with the study team (n  =  22, 1.4%) or outside of the healthcare system (n  =  26, 1.7%), and disapproval of the opt-out approach (n  =  10, 0.6%); most patients with these concerns opted-out. Nodule unawareness sometimes coincided with anger (n  =  24) or distress (n  =  15), and questions about nodule care sometimes coincided with distress (n  =  20) and questions about follow-up surveys (n  =  26). CONCLUSION: Most participants did not report concerns about passive enrollment. Patient perspectives are an invaluable resource for minimizing risks and inconveniences of future pragmatic trials using this recruitment method.