Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background There is growing interest in the use and incorporation of empirical data in bioethics research. Much of the recent focus has been on specific “empirical bioethics” methodologies, which attempt to integrate the empirical and the normative. Researchers in the field are, however, beginning to explore broader questions, including around acceptable standards of practice for undertaking such research. The framework: In this article, we further widen the focus to consider the overall shape of an empirical bioethics research project. We outline a framework that identifies three key phases of such research, which are conveyed via a landscaping metaphor of Mapping-Framing-Shaping. First, the researcher maps the field of study, typically by undertaking literature reviews. Second, the researcher frames particular areas of the field of study, exploring these in depth, usually via qualitative research. Finally, the researcher seeks to (re-)shape the terrain by issuing recommendations that draw on the findings from the preceding phases. To qualify as empirical bioethics research, the researcher will utilise a methodology that seeks to bridge these different elements in order to arrive at normative recommendations. We illustrate the framework by citing examples of diverse projects which broadly adopt the three-phase framework. Amongst the strengths of the framework are its flexibility, since (as the examples indicate) it does not prescribe any specific methods or particular bridging methodology. However, the framework might also have its limitations, not least because it appears particularly to capture projects that involve qualitative – as opposed to quantitative – research. Conclusions Despite its possible limitations, we offer the Mapping-Framing-Shaping framework in the hope that this will prove useful to those who are seeking to plan and undertake empirical bioethics research projects.

Background Despite the increased prevalence of bioethics research that seeks to use empirical data to answer normative research questions, there is no consensus as to what an appropriate methodology for this would be. This review aims to search the literature, present and critically discuss published Empirical Bioethics methodologies. Methods MedLine, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched between 15/02/12 and 16/06/13 to find relevant papers. These were abstract reviewed independently by two reviewers with papers meeting the inclusion criteria subjected to data extraction. Results 33 publications (32 papers and one book chapter) were included which contained 32 distinct methodologies. The majority of these methodologies (n = 22) can be classed as either dialogical or consultative, and these represent two extreme ‘poles’ of methodological orientation. Consideration of these results provoked three central questions that are central to the planning of an empirical bioethics study, and revolve around how a normative conclusion can be justified, the analytic process through which that conclusion is reached, and the kind of conclusion that is sought. Conclusion When considering which methodology or research methods to adopt in any particular study, researchers need to think carefully about the nature of the claims they wish to generate through their analyses, and how these claims align with the aims of the research. Whilst there are superficial similarities in the ways that identical research methods are made use of, the different meta-ethical and epistemological commitments that undergird the range of methodological approaches adopted rehearse many of the central foundational disagreements that play out within moral philosophy and bioethical analysis more broadly. There is little common ground that transcends these disagreements, and we argue that this is likely to present a challenge for the legitimacy of the bioethical enterprise. We conclude, however, that this heterogeneity ought to be welcomed, but urge those involved in the field to engage meaningfully and explicitly with questions concerning what kinds of moral claim they want to be able to make, about normative justification and the methodological process, and about the coherence of these components within their work.

Autistic people experience barriers to accessing healthcare. Autistic clinical professionals may be able to help improve this situation. Previous research, however, has shown that Autistic clinical professionals experience numerous challenges in the workplace. If there is a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on the person’s ability to do normal daily activities, then Autism may be considered a disability under The Equality Act 2010; the jurisdiction of which covers Great Britain. Autistic clinical professionals working in healthcare settings across England, Wales, and Scotland are therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments to aid them in their clinical practice. This is a qualitative study. We recruited 82 Autistic clinical professionals via social media to complete an online survey. Questions broadly explored: 1) the challenges they faced in their clinical workplaces; and 2) the reasonable adjustments that they needed, had, or needed but did not have. Data were analysed quasi-thematically, also drawing on the principles of content analysis. Respondents reported multiple challenges from our analysis, from which we developed 8 themes: gaining and attending employment, reasonable adjustments under the radar, connecting and integrating (specifically, the communication mismatches between Autistic professionals and non-autistic colleagues, and fitting in socially and professionally), executive functioning, change, working environment, working practices/cultures, and the consequences and effects on Autistic clinical professionals). We recommend that Autistic clinical professionals and their employers individually discuss and iteratively revisit the unique combination of reasonable adjustments suitable for each person. In this way, employers may provide equitable workplaces for their staff which will benefit not only them, but their patients, and healthcare as a whole.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQL) are increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness in clinical trials, are valued by patients, and may inform important decisions in the clinical setting. It is of concern, therefore, that preliminary evidence, gained from group discussions at UK-wide Medical Research Council (MRC) quality of life training days, suggests there are inconsistent standards of HRQL data collection in trials and appropriate training and education is often lacking. Our objective was to investigate these reports, to determine if they represented isolated experiences, or were indicative of a potentially wider problem. We undertook a qualitative study, conducting 26 semi-structured interviews with research nurses, data managers, trial coordinators and research facilitators involved in the collection and entry of HRQL data in clinical trials, across one primary care NHS trust, two secondary care NHS trusts and two clinical trials units in the UK. We used conventional content analysis to analyze and interpret our data. Our study participants reported (1) inconsistent standards in HRQL measurement, both between, and within, trials, which appeared to risk the introduction of bias; (2), difficulties in dealing with HRQL data that raised concern for the well-being of the trial participant, which in some instances led to the delivery of non-protocol driven co-interventions, (3), a frequent lack of HRQL protocol content and appropriate training and education of trial staff, and (4) that HRQL data collection could be associated with emotional and/or ethical burden. Our findings suggest there are inconsistencies in the standards of HRQL data collection in some trials resulting from a general lack of HRQL-specific protocol content, training and education. These inconsistencies could lead to biased HRQL trial results. Future research should aim to develop HRQL guidelines and training programmes aimed at supporting researchers to carry out high quality data collection.

The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice.

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides valuable information to inform patient-centered care, but may also reveal 'PRO alerts': psychological distress or physical symptoms that may require an immediate response. Ad-hoc management of PRO alerts in clinical trials may result in suboptimal patient care or potentially bias trial results. To gain greater understanding of current practice in PRO alert management we conducted a national survey of personnel involved in clinical trials with a PRO endpoint. We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 767 UK-based research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials using PROs. Respondents were self-selected volunteers from a non-randomised sample of eligible individuals recruited via 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Questions centred on the proportion of trial personnel encountering alerts, how staff responded to PRO alerts and whether current guidance was deemed sufficient to support research personnel. We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. 20% of research nurses did not view completed PRO questionnaires and were not in a position to discover alerts, 39-50% of the remaining respondent group participants reported encountering PRO alerts. Of these, 83% of research nurses and 54% of data managers/trial coordinators reported taking action to assist the trial participant, but less than half were able to record the intervention in the trial documentation. Research personnel reported current PRO alert guidance/training was insufficient. Research personnel are intermittently exposed to PRO alerts. Some intervene to help trial participants, but are not able to record this intervention in the trial documentation, risking co-intervention bias. Other staff do not check PRO information during the trial, meaning alerts may remain undiscovered, or do not respond to alerts if they are inadvertently encountered; both of which may impact on patient safety. Guidance is needed to support PRO alert management that protects the interests of trial participants whilst avoiding potential bias.

Background When an adult patient lacks decision-making capacity, care decisions must be made on their behalf in their “best interests”. We know little about the experiences of the family members of adult kidney patients with cognitive impairments, particularly in relation to best interests decisions. It is anticipated that they have varied experiences, with many feeling excluded from the most complex care decisions. Methods This study aimed to understand the views and experiences of family members of adult kidney patients who had undergone a best interests decision in England. Semi-structured interviews ( n  = 6) were conducted with family members to explore their experiences and their views of the best interests process. Interview transcripts were then thematically analysed. Results A range of experiences were reported, with four themes developed: prioritising patient preferences; family involvement; opposition to the best interests approach; and the importance of communication amongst all involved. Our findings suggest inconsistencies in how best interests decisions are approached in England, which can affect the nature and extent of family involvement. Participants highlighted the value of clear communication on all aspects of the decision-making process, including clarity on the roles of different stakeholders. Conclusions When caring for adults who lack decision-making capacity, improvements in communication amongst all involved may minimise disagreements that escalate to legal proceedings.

Background Chronic kidney disease is a significant cause of global deaths. Those who progress to end-stage kidney disease often commence dialysis as a life-extending treatment. For cognitively impaired patients, the decision as to whether they commence dialysis will fall to someone else. This scoping review was conducted to map existing literature pertaining to how decisions about dialysis are and should be made with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity. In doing so, it forms the basis of a larger body of work that is exploring how these decisions ought to be made. Methods To identify relevant papers, searches were conducted on Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsychINFO, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were then applied, requiring that papers: report on empirical studies about how decisions about dialysis are made and/or discuss how decisions about dialysis should be made with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity; be published from 1961 onwards; and be published in English. This resulted in 27 papers eligible for inclusion. Results Of note, the majority of papers originated in the United States. There was wide variation across the included papers. Extracted data were grouped under the following themes: involving various parties (patient involvement, family dominance, and wider communication); objectivity about care options (including difficulties with family detachment); cultural sensitivity; medical versus non-medical factors; managing nonadherent patients; and the role and prevalence of substituted judgement. The literature shows that there is inconsistency in the principles and processes surrounding decisions made about dialysis with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity. Conclusions This scoping review demonstrates that there is significant variation in both the practice and theory of dialysis decision making with, for, and on behalf of cognitively impaired adult patients. Complexity arises in considering who should get a say, how influential their say should be in a decision, and what factors are most relevant to the decision. A lack of up-to-date literature exploring this issue is highlighted, with this scoping review providing a useful groundwork from which further research can be undertaken.

Qualitative evidence suggests patient-reported outcome (PRO) information is frequently absent from clinical trial protocols, potentially leading to inconsistent PRO data collection and risking bias. Direct evidence regarding PRO trial protocol content is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the PRO-specific content of UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme trial protocols. We conducted an electronic search of the NIHR HTA programme database (inception to August 2013) for protocols describing a randomised controlled trial including a primary/secondary PRO. Two investigators independently reviewed the content of each protocol, using a specially constructed PRO-specific protocol checklist, alongside the 'Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials' (SPIRIT) checklist. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. 75 trial protocols were included in the analysis. Protocols included a mean of 32/51 (63%) SPIRIT recommendations (range 16-41, SD 5.62) and 11/33 (33%) PRO-specific items (range 4-18, SD 3.56). Over half (61%) of the PRO items were incomplete. Protocols containing a primary PRO included slightly more PRO checklist items (mean 14/33 (43%)). PRO protocol content was not associated with general protocol completeness; thus, protocols judged as relatively 'complete' using SPIRIT were still likely to have omitted a large proportion of PRO checklist items. The PRO components of HTA clinical trial protocols require improvement. Information on the PRO rationale/hypothesis, data collection methods, training and management was often absent. This low compliance is unsurprising; evidence shows existing PRO guidance for protocol developers remains difficult to access and lacks consistency. Study findings suggest there are a number of PRO protocol checklist items that are not fully addressed by the current SPIRIT statement. We therefore advocate the development of consensus-based supplementary guidelines, aimed at improving the completeness and quality of PRO content in clinical trial protocols.