Attitudes of small animal practitioners toward participation in veterinary clinical trials

Margaret E. GruenComparative Pain Research Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607.
Center for Comparative Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607.

Search for other papers by Margaret E. Gruen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MVPH, PhD
,
Emily H. GriffithDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Statistics, College of Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607.

Search for other papers by Emily H. Griffith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Sarah M. A. CaneyVet Professionals Ltd, Midlothian Innovation Centre, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RE, England.

Search for other papers by Sarah M. A. Caney in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVSc, PhD
,
Mark RishniwDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
Veterinary Information Network, 777 W Covell Blvd, Davis, CA 95618.

Search for other papers by Mark Rishniw in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 bvsc, PhD
, and
B. Duncan X. LascellesComparative Pain Research Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607.
Center for Comparative Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607.
Center for Pain Research and Innovation, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.

Search for other papers by B. Duncan X. Lascelles in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVSc, PhD
View More View Less

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine attitudes of small animal practitioners toward veterinary clinical trials and variables influencing their likelihood of participating in such trials.

DESIGN Cross-sectional survey.

SAMPLE Small animal practitioners with membership in 1 of 2 online veterinary communities (n = 163 and 652).

PROCEDURES An online survey was developed for each of 2 veterinary communities, and invitations to participate were sent via email. Each survey included questions designed to collect information on the respondents’ willingness to enroll their patients in clinical trials and to recommend participation to clients for their pets.

RESULTS More than 80% of respondents to each survey indicated that they spend no time in clinical research. A high proportion of respondents were likely or extremely likely to recommend clinical trial participation to clients for their pets when those trials involved treatments licensed in other countries, novel treatments, respected investigators, or sponsoring by academic institutions, among other reasons. Reasons for not recommending participation included distance, time restrictions, and lack of awareness of ongoing clinical trials; 28% of respondents indicated that they did not usually learn about such clinical trials. Most respondents (79% to 92%) rated their recommendation of a trial as important to their client's willingness to participate.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Participation in veterinary clinical trials by small animal practitioners and their clients and patients appeared low. Efforts should be increased to raise practitioner awareness of clinical trials for which patients might qualify. Specific elements of trial design were identified that could be modified to increase participation.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine attitudes of small animal practitioners toward veterinary clinical trials and variables influencing their likelihood of participating in such trials.

DESIGN Cross-sectional survey.

SAMPLE Small animal practitioners with membership in 1 of 2 online veterinary communities (n = 163 and 652).

PROCEDURES An online survey was developed for each of 2 veterinary communities, and invitations to participate were sent via email. Each survey included questions designed to collect information on the respondents’ willingness to enroll their patients in clinical trials and to recommend participation to clients for their pets.

RESULTS More than 80% of respondents to each survey indicated that they spend no time in clinical research. A high proportion of respondents were likely or extremely likely to recommend clinical trial participation to clients for their pets when those trials involved treatments licensed in other countries, novel treatments, respected investigators, or sponsoring by academic institutions, among other reasons. Reasons for not recommending participation included distance, time restrictions, and lack of awareness of ongoing clinical trials; 28% of respondents indicated that they did not usually learn about such clinical trials. Most respondents (79% to 92%) rated their recommendation of a trial as important to their client's willingness to participate.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Participation in veterinary clinical trials by small animal practitioners and their clients and patients appeared low. Efforts should be increased to raise practitioner awareness of clinical trials for which patients might qualify. Specific elements of trial design were identified that could be modified to increase participation.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Appendix s1 (PDF 815 kb)
    • Supplementary Appendix s2 (PDF 678 kb)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Lascelles (dxlascel@ncsu.edu).
  • 1. Lovato LC, Hill K, Hertert S, et al. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 328352.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Ulrich CM, James JL, Walker EM, et al. RTOG physician and research associate attitudes, beliefs and practices regarding clinical trials: implications for improving patient recruitment. Contemp Clin Trials 2010; 31: 221228.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 141148.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 11431156.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Gruen ME, Griffith E, Thomson A, et al. Detection of clinically relevant pain relief in cats with degenerative joint disease associated pain. J Vet Intern Med 2014; 28: 346350.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Muñana KR, Zhang D, Patterson EE. Placebo effect in canine epilepsy trials. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 166170.

  • 7. Conzemius MG, Evans RB. Caregiver placebo effect for dogs with lameness from osteoarthritis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 241: 13141319.

  • 8. Gruen ME, Griffith EH, Thomson AE, et al. Criterion validation testing of clinical metrology instruments for measuring degenerative joint disease associated mobility impairment in cats. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0131839.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Pinxten W, Nys H, Dierickx K. Regulating trust in pediatric clinical trials. Med Health Care Philos 2008; 11: 439444.

  • 10. Sureshkumar P, Caldwell P, Lowe A, et al. Parental consent to participation in a randomised trial in children: associated child, family, and physician factors. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 645651.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Caldwell PH, Butow PN, Craig JC. Pediatricians' attitudes toward randomized controlled trials involving children. J Pediatr 2002; 141: 798803.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Caldwell PH, Hamilton S, Tan A, et al. Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000368.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Kaguelidou F, Amiel P, Blachier A, et al. Recruitment in pediatric clinical research was influenced by study characteristics and pediatricians' perceptions: a multicenter survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 11511157.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Gruen ME, Jiamachello KN, Thomson A, et al. Clinical trials involving cats: what factors affect owner participation? J Feline Med Surg 2014; 16: 727735.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Ford E, Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, et al. Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy. Br J Cancer 2011; 104: 15351543.

  • 16. Rendell JM, Merritt RD, Geddes JR. Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;MR000021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Jones RW, Andrieu S, Knox S, et al. Physicians and caregivers: ready and waiting for increased participation in clinical research. J Nutr Health Aging 2010; 14: 563568.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Chevret S, et al. Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials. Cancer 2006; 106: 258270.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Amiel P, Moreau D, Vincent-Genod C, et al. Noninvitation of eligible individuals to participate in pediatric studies: a qualitative study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007; 161: 446450.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Galvin JE, Meuser TM, Boise L, et al. Predictors of physician referral for patient recruitment to Alzheimer disease clinical trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009; 23: 352356.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Dalen JAR, Brody JL, Perryman ML. Influences upon pediatricians' willingness to refer patients to clinical research. Open Access J Clin Trials 2010; 2: 2328.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Kaplan CP, Napoles AM, Dohan D, et al. Clinical trial discussion, referral, and recruitment: physician, patient, and system factors. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24: 979988.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, et al. Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians' perspective: a postal survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 14.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Sumi E, Murayama T, Yokode M. A survey of attitudes toward clinical research among physicians at Kyoto University Hospital. BMC Med Educ 2009; 9: 75.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. McAlearney AS, Song PH, Reiter KL. Why providers participate in clinical trials: considering the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program. Contemp Clin Trials 2012; 33: 11431149.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Bell R, Harr K, Rishniw M, et al. Survey of point-of-care instrumentation, analysis, and quality assurance in veterinary practice. Vet Clin Pathol 2014; 43: 185192.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Burns K. AVMA launches database of clinical studies. JAVMA News July 15, 2016. Available at: www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/160715a.aspx. Accessed Jul 6, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement