How experiences become data: the process of eliciting adverse event, medical history and concomitant medication reports in antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Clare IR Chandler³  Karen I Barnes⁵  Ushma Mehta⁵  Sarah G Staedke¹  Martha Lemnge²  Lasse S Vestergaard⁶  Isolide S Massawe²  Adiel K Mushi⁴  Elizabeth N Allen⁵ 

[1]Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Bloomsbury, London, UK

[2]National Institute for Medical Research, Tanga Centre, Tanga, Tanzania

[3]Department of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Bloomsbury, London, UK

[4]National Institute for Medical Research, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

[5]Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

[6]Department of Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

关键词: Tanzania;    South Africa;    Social context;    Elicitation;    HIV;    Malaria;    Pharmacovigilance;    Harm;    Safety;    Clinical trial;   

Others  :  866576
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-140

 received in 2013-04-29, accepted in 2013-11-13,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Accurately characterizing a drug’s safety profile is essential. Trial harm and tolerability assessments rely, in part, on participants’ reports of medical histories, adverse events (AEs), and concomitant medications. Optimal methods for questioning participants are unclear, but different methods giving different results can undermine meta-analyses. This study compared methods for eliciting such data and explored reasons for dissimilar participant responses.

Methods

Participants from open-label antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials in two distinct sites (South Africa, n = 18 [all HIV positive]; Tanzania, n = 80 [86% HIV positive]) were asked about ill health and treatment use by sequential use of (1) general enquiries without reference to particular conditions, body systems or treatments, (2) checklists of potential health issues and treatments, (3) in-depth interviews. Participants’ experiences of illness and treatment and their reporting behaviour were explored qualitatively, as were trial clinicians’ experiences with obtaining participant reports. Outcomes were the number and nature of data by questioning method, themes from qualitative analyses and a theoretical interpretation of participants’ experiences.

Results

There was an overall cumulative increase in the number of reports from general enquiry through checklists to in-depth interview; in South Africa, an additional 12 medical histories, 21 AEs and 27 medications; in Tanzania an additional 260 medical histories, 1 AE and 11 medications. Checklists and interviews facilitated recognition of health issues and treatments, and consideration of what to report. Information was sometimes not reported because participants forgot, it was considered irrelevant or insignificant, or they feared reporting. Some medicine names were not known and answers to questions were considered inferior to blood tests for detecting ill health. South African inpatient volunteers exhibited a “trial citizenship”, working to achieve researchers’ goals, while Tanzanian outpatients sometimes deferred responsibility for identifying items to report to trial clinicians.

Conclusions

Questioning methods and trial contexts influence the detection of adverse events, medical histories and concomitant medications. There should be further methodological work to investigate these influences and find appropriate questioning methods.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Allen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ioannidis JP, Mulrow CD, Goodman SN: Adverse events: the more you search, the more you find. Ann Intern Med 2006, 144(4):298-300.
• [2]Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A, Cochrane adverse effects methods group: Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]CIOMS: Management of safety information from clinical trials: report of CIOMS working group VI. Geneva; 2005.
• [4]Huang HY, Andrews E, Jones J, Skovron ML, Tilson H: Pitfalls in meta-analyses on adverse events reported from clinical trials. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011, 20(10):1014-1020.
• [5]Rief W, Glombiewski JA, Barsky AJ: Generic assessment of side effects. [http://gase-scale.com/Instruction_GASE.pdf webcite]
• [6]Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL: Brief communication: better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2006, 21:257-261.
• [7]Barber BL, Santanello NC: Relating spontaneous adverse experience reports to scores on a questionnaire querying tolerability. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995, 33(11):598-604.
• [8]Greenhill LL, Vitiello B, Fisher P, Levine J, Davies M, Abikoff H, Chrisman AK, Chuang S, Findling RL, March J, Scahill L, Walkup J, Riddle MA: Comparison of increasingly detailed elicitation methods for the assessment of adverse events in pediatric psychopharmacology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2004, 43(12):1488-1496.
• [9]Wernicke JF, Faries D, Milton D, Weyrauch K: Detecting treatment emergent adverse events in clinical trials: a comparison of spontaneously reported and solicited collection methods. Drug Saf 2005, 28(11):1057-1063.
• [10]Hodel EM, Kabanywanyi AM, Malila A, Zanolari B, Mercier T, Beck HP, Buclin T, Olliaro P, Decosterd LA, Genton B: Residual antimalarials in malaria patients from Tanzania–implications on drug efficacy assessment and spread of parasite resistance. PLoS One 2009, 4(12):e8184.
• [11]West SL, Strom BL, Poll C: Validity of pharmacoepidemiology drug and diagnosis data. In Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th edition. Edited by Strom BL. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2005:709-765.
• [12]Gama H, Correia S, Lunet N: Questionnaire design and the recall of pharmacological treatments: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009, 18(3):175-187.
• [13]Lin KM, Smith MW, Ortiz V: Culture and psychopharmacology. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2001, 24(3):523-538.
• [14]CIOMS/WHO: Drug Development Research in Resource-Limited Countries. Geneva: Draft report of the Joint CIOMS/WHO working group; 2005.
• [15]Johnson MO, Neilands TB: Neuroticism, side effects, and health perceptions among HIV-infected individuals on antiretroviral medications. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2007, 14(1):69-77.
• [16]Nestoriuc Y, Orav EJ, Liang MH, Horne R, Barsky AJ: Prediction of nonspecific side effects in rheumatoid arthritis patients by beliefs about medicines. Arthritis Care Res 2010, 62(6):791-799.
• [17]Korfage IJ, Hak T, de Koning HJ, Essink-Bot ML: Patients' perceptions of the side-effects of prostate cancer treatment–a qualitative interview study. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63(4):911-919.
• [18]Brugge D, Edgar T, George K, Heung J, Laws MB: Beyond literacy and numeracy in patient provider communication: focus groups suggest roles for empowerment, provider attitude and language. BMC Public Health 2009, 21:9-354.
• [19]Sandhu H, Adams A, Singleton L, Clark-Carter D, Kidd J: The impact of gender dyads on doctor–patient communication: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 76(3):348-355.
• [20]Ong LML, de Haes JCJM, Hoos AM, Lammes FB: Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 1995, 40:903.
• [21]Etkin NL: ”Side effects“: cultural constructions and reinterpretations of Western pharmaceuticals. Med Anthropol Q 1992, 6:99-113.
• [22]Stober M: Multinational clinical trials: breaking language and cultural barriers. [http://appliedclinicaltrialsonline.findpharma.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/ webcite]
• [23]Colloca L: The influence of the nocebo effect in clinical trials. Open Access J Clin Trials 2012, 4:61-68.
• [24]Myers MG, Cairns JA, Singer J: The consent form as a possible cause of side effects. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1987, 42(3):250-253.
• [25]The ACT consortium [http://www.actconsortium.org/ webcite]
• [26]Auerbach CF, Silverstein LB: Qualitative Data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press; 2003.
• [27]Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage; 1990.
• [28]International Conference on Harmonisation. 'Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1). 1996. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6_R1/Step4/E6_R1__Guideline.pdf webcite Accessed 14th November 2013
• [29]Lunet N, Bastos J, Cumaio F, Silva P, Dias E, Barros H: Recall of drug utilization depends on subtle structural questionnaire characteristics. Pharm World Sci 2008, 30(2):175-181.
• [30]Bowling A: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005, 27(3):281-291.
• [31]Scott C, Walker J, White P, Lewith G: Forging convictions: the effects of active participation in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72:2041-2048.
• [32]Paterson C, Zheng Z, Xue C, Wang Y: “Playing their parts”: the experiences of participants in a randomized sham-controlled acupuncture trial. J Altern Complement Med 2008, 14(2):199-208.
• [33]Heaven B, Murtagg M, Rapley T, May C, Graham R, Kaner E, Thomson R: Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 62:260-270.
• [34]Rose N, Novas C: Biological citizenship. In Collier S.J, Ong A. Global Assemblages Anthropological Problems, in Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Edited by Ong A, Collier SJ. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2005:439-463.
• [35]Molyneux CS, Peshu N, Marsh K: Understanding of informed consent in a low-income setting: three case studies from the Kenyan Coast. Soc Sci Med 2004, 59(12):2547-2559.
• [36]Björnsdóttir I, Almarsdóttir AB, Traulsen JM: The lay public’s explicit and implicit definitions of drugs. Res Social Adm Pharm 2009, 5(1):40-50.
• [37]Chandler CI, Hall-Clifford R, Asaph T, Pascal M, Clarke S, Mbonye AK: Introducing malaria rapid diagnostic tests at registered drug shops in Uganda: limitations of diagnostic testing in the reality of diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(6):937-944.
• [38]Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A: What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 1999, 319:780-782.
• [39]Achmat Z, Simcock J: Combining prevention, treatment and care: lessons from South Africa. AIDS 2007, 21(Suppl 4):11-20.
• [40]Barlow F, Scott C, Coghlan B, Lee P, White P, Lewith GT, Bishop FL: How the psychosocial context of clinical trials differs from usual care: a qualitative study of acupuncture patients. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:79. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Helman CG: Culture, Health and Illness. 5th edition. London: Hodder Arnold; 2007.
• [42]Goodyear-Smith F, Buetow S: Power issues in the doctor-patient relationship. Health Care Anal 2001, 2001(9):449-462.
• [43]Davies EC, Chandler CIR, Innocent SHS, Kalumuna C, Terlouw DJ, Lalloo DG, Staedke SG, Haaland A: Designing adverse event forms for real-world reporting: participatory research in Uganda. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(3):e32704.
• [44]Pool R, Montgomery CM, Morar NS, Mweemba O, Ssali A, Gafos M, Lees S, Stadler J, Crook A, Nunn A, Hayes R, McCormack S: A mixed methods and triangulation model for increasing the accuracy of adherence and sexual behaviour data: the microbicides development programme. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(7):e11600.
• [45]Hesse-Biber S: Weaving a multimethodology and mixed methods praxis into randomized control trials to enhance credibility. Qual Inq 2012, 18(10):876-889.