Patient and clinician perspectives on clinical trials in transplant failure: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND: Transplant failure is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and poor quality of life. There is limited evidence to inform treatment decision-making when and after kidney transplants fail: randomised controlled trials are needed. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of clinical trials into the management of kidney transplant failure, and explored research facilitators and barriers. METHODS: We undertook in-depth interviews with adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who had failing kidney transplants or had experienced kidney transplant failure, their relatives/friends, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were recruited from three UK NHS hospitals. Iterative purposive sampling of patient participants was undertaken, aiming for diversity with respect to personal characteristics, the type of transplant received (living/deceased-donor), whether the transplant was failing or had failed, and current kidney disease treatment. Purposive sampling of HCPs ensured diversity in sex, age, ethnicity, and role. Family and friends were recruited via posters and snowball sampling. Interviews investigated perspectives on clinical trials at the time of transplant failure. Sample size was determined by reaching theoretical saturation. We undertook inductive analysis according to constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: Forty-one participants (17 HCPs/15 patients/9 relatives or friends) were interviewed. We identified the following categories: Facilitators to clinical trials: analytical thinking i.Recognition of the lack of evidence-individual and community equipoiseii.Motivation to advance stratified and personalised medicine Challenges to clinical trials: cognitive biases and heuristics iii.Status quo bias-preference for existing treatment regimensiv.Loss and risk aversion-fear of harm from researchv.Experiential learning and the availability heuristic-decisions based on recent or memorable cases These 5 categories were considered within the core category of 'Personal reasoning and clinical gatekeeping'. There was strong support for immunosuppression reduction trials, with stratification of people according to clinical and immunological subtypes. HCPs and patients supported trials after transplant failure but were reticent to engage in trials as a transplant was failing. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledged individual and community equipoise appear to support trial delivery and recruitment. Umbrella trials may be needed to evaluate therapies in multiple patient subgroups.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Trials
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09732-1
Primary Topic
Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient and clinician perspectives on clinical trials in transplant failure: a qualitative interview study

Bonnie Venter, Alan Hancock, Leah McLaughlin, Sian Griffin et al.
Trials
Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
article

Patient and clinician perspectives on clinical trials in transplant failure: a qualitative interview study

Bonnie Venter, Alan Hancock, Leah McLaughlin, Sian Griffin, Pippa K. Bailey, Jane Noyes, Lucy E. Selman, Barnaby Hole, Catherine Exley
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transplant failure is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and poor quality of life. There is limited evidence to inform treatment decision-making when and after kidney transplants fail: randomised controlled trials are needed. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of clinical trials into the management of kidney transplant failure, and explored research facilitators and barriers. METHODS: We undertook in-depth interviews with adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who had failing kidney transplants or had experienced kidney transplant failure, their relatives/friends, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were recruited from three UK NHS hospitals. Iterative purposive sampling of patient participants was undertaken, aiming for diversity with respect to personal characteristics, the type of transplant received (living/deceased-donor), whether the transplant was failing or had failed, and current kidney disease treatment. Purposive sampling of HCPs ensured diversity in sex, age, ethnicity, and role. Family and friends were recruited via posters and snowball sampling. Interviews investigated perspectives on clinical trials at the time of transplant failure. Sample size was determined by reaching theoretical saturation. We undertook inductive analysis according to constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: Forty-one participants (17 HCPs/15 patients/9 relatives or friends) were interviewed. We identified the following categories: Facilitators to clinical trials: analytical thinking i.Recognition of the lack of evidence-individual and community equipoiseii.Motivation to advance stratified and personalised medicine Challenges to clinical trials: cognitive biases and heuristics iii.Status quo bias-preference for existing treatment regimensiv.Loss and risk aversion-fear of harm from researchv.Experiential learning and the availability heuristic-decisions based on recent or memorable cases These 5 categories were considered within the core category of 'Personal reasoning and clinical gatekeeping'. There was strong support for immunosuppression reduction trials, with stratification of people according to clinical and immunological subtypes. HCPs and patients supported trials after transplant failure but were reticent to engage in trials as a transplant was failing. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledged individual and community equipoise appear to support trial delivery and recruitment. Umbrella trials may be needed to evaluate therapies in multiple patient subgroups.

Trials
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB), North Bristol NHS Trust (GB), Bangor University (GB), At Bristol (GB), University of Bristol (GB), Newcastle University (GB)
Research for Patient Benefit Programme
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.