Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders’ views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning

View ORCID ProfileVictoria Shepherd, Kerenza Hood, Fiona Wood
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.25.23289103
Victoria Shepherd
1Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Victoria Shepherd
  • For correspondence: ShepherdVL1{at}cardiff.ac.uk
Kerenza Hood
1Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona Wood
2PRIME Centre Wales, UK
3Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction To date, anticipatory planning in the UK has focused on supporting people who anticipate periods of impaired decisional capacity to express their wishes about their future care through processes such as advance care planning. Other countries have extended anticipatory planning to include mechanisms for people to prospectively express their preferences about research participation. Advance research planning (ARP) could extend people’s autonomy and ensure that ‘proxy’ decisions about research are based on their wishes and preferences.

Objectives To explore a range of public and professional stakeholders’ views about the acceptability and feasibility of planning for future research participation and identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ARP.

Design Cross-sectional survey

Main outcomes Acceptability and feasibility of ARP

Participants Between November 2022 and March 2023, two groups of stakeholders (members of the public including people living with capacity-affecting conditions and their carers; researchers and other professionals) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey via multiple recruitment routes. Online questionnaires were used to capture the perspectives of the two groups.

Results Responses from members of the public (n=277) and professionals (n=50) were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Introducing ARP in the UK was supported by 97% of public contributors and 94% of professionals, who recommended it include the person’s general wishes about research, specific types of studies if known, and who should make decisions on their behalf. Challenges include how ARP takes account of changes in individuals’ preferences or circumstances and protecting their rights and interests. Implementation barriers include the potential time, complexity, and cost involved. These may be addressed by embedding ARP in existing anticipatory planning pathways and aligning it with other research enrolment activities. Relationships and trust have a key role, including underpinning who supports the delivery of ARP, how they are trained, and when it is undertaken.

Conclusions There are high levels of support for implementing ARP in the UK. Further research should explore practical barriers and stakeholder concerns and identify any unintended consequences. ARP interventions should be developed alongside training and other resources. Activities should focus on public awareness campaigns, and engaging policymakers and other stakeholders.

Strengths and limitations of this study

  1. This is the first exploration of the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning in the UK

  2. Questions were based on previous similar surveys conducted in other countries which ensured prior validation and enables international comparison

  3. The study included a wide range of members of the public including people living with conditions that may affect decision-making in the future, and professionals including researchers, research ethics committee members, and healthcare practitioners

  4. The non-random selection of participants and inability to track non-responders may have resulted in potential participation bias

  5. Participants were predominantly white and had some prior involvement in research, therefore their views may not be representative of more diverse groups or those with less experience of research

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study was conducted as part of a National Institute of Health Research Advanced Fellowship (CONSULT) held by VS and funded by the Welsh Government through Health and Care Research Wales (NIHR-FS(A)-2021)

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee of Cardiff University gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The dataset generated and used in this study is available through submission of a data request to the Centre for Trials Research at https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/centre-for-trials-research/about-us/data-requests

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 27, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders’ views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders’ views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning
Victoria Shepherd, Kerenza Hood, Fiona Wood
medRxiv 2023.04.25.23289103; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.25.23289103
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders’ views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning
Victoria Shepherd, Kerenza Hood, Fiona Wood
medRxiv 2023.04.25.23289103; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.25.23289103

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Palliative Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (428)
  • Allergy and Immunology (753)
  • Anesthesia (220)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3286)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (362)
  • Dermatology (276)
  • Emergency Medicine (478)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1168)
  • Epidemiology (13349)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (898)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5140)
  • Geriatric Medicine (480)
  • Health Economics (781)
  • Health Informatics (3260)
  • Health Policy (1140)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1189)
  • Hematology (429)
  • HIV/AIDS (1015)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14618)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (912)
  • Medical Education (476)
  • Medical Ethics (126)
  • Nephrology (522)
  • Neurology (4914)
  • Nursing (262)
  • Nutrition (725)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (880)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (795)
  • Oncology (2517)
  • Ophthalmology (722)
  • Orthopedics (280)
  • Otolaryngology (347)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (542)
  • Pediatrics (1299)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (549)
  • Primary Care Research (555)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4198)
  • Public and Global Health (7489)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1703)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1010)
  • Respiratory Medicine (979)
  • Rheumatology (479)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (496)
  • Sports Medicine (424)
  • Surgery (547)
  • Toxicology (72)
  • Transplantation (235)
  • Urology (204)