Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient

Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Participants considering early-phase cancer clinical trials (CTs) need to understand the unique risks and benefits prior to providing informed consent. This qualitative study explored the factors that influence patients' decisions about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs through the ethical lens of relational autonomy.

METHODS

Using an interpretive descriptive design, interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with advanced cancer who had enrolled in an early-phase CT. Data was analyzed using relational autonomy ethical theory and constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The extent to which participants perceived themselves as having a choice to participate in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs was a central construct. Perceptions of choice varied according to whether participants characterized their experience as an act of desperation or as an opportunity to receive a novel treatment. Intersecting psychosocial and structural factors influenced participants' decision making about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials. These relational factors included: (1) being provided with hope; (2) having trust; (3) having the ability to withdraw; and (4) timing constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the continuum of perceived choice that exists among patients with cancer when considering participation in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs. All participants were interpreted as exhibiting some degree of relational autonomy within the psychosocial and structural context of early-phase CT decision making. This study offers insights into the intersection of cancer care delivery, personal beliefs and values, and established CT processes and structures that can inform future practices and policies associated with early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs to better support patients in making informed decisions.

Implementing and evaluating patient-focused safety technology on adult acute mental health wards

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT

Mental health wards can feel unsafe. We know that patients and staff have different ideas about what makes a hospital ward safe or unsafe. Patients are often the first to know when the atmosphere on a ward becomes tense, but often, no one asks them for their views. Patients and staff are experts and should be included in discussions about how to make wards safer.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE

We got together with some service users and staff, and made an app that helps patients to tell staff when they are not feeling safe on a mental health ward. We tried it out on six wards and we asked patients and staff what they thought. The app was easy to use and most people liked the look of it. Patients said staff did not talk with them enough and so they liked using the app. However, some staff said they could tell how patients were feeling without an app and so they did not need it. Ward managers told us that staff were often very busy and did not always have time to use the app.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This app could help staff know straightaway when patients do not feel safe on the ward, so that they can act quickly to calm things down. To make the most of the app, staff need to get used to it and bring it into ward routines.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Safety improvement on mental health wards is of international concern. It should incorporate patient perspectives.

AIM

Implementation and evaluation of 'WardSonar', a digital safety-monitoring tool for adult acute mental health wards, developed with stakeholders to communicate patients' real-time safety perceptions to staff.

METHOD

Six acute adult mental health wards in England implemented the tool in 2022. Evaluation over 10 weeks involved qualitative interviews (34 patients, 33 staff), 39 focused ethnographic observations, and analysis of pen portraits.

RESULTS

Implementation and evaluation of the WardSonar tool was feasible despite challenging conditions. Most patients valued the opportunity to communicate their immediate safety concerns, stating that staff had a poor understanding of them. Some staff said the WardSonar tool could help enhanced ward safety but recognised a need to incorporate its use into daily routines. Others said they did not need the tool to understand patients' safety concerns.

DISCUSSION

Foreseeable challenges, including staff ambivalence and practical issues, appeared intensified by the post-COVID-19 context.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The WardSonar tool could improve ward safety, especially from patients' perspectives. Future implementation could support staff to use the real-time data to inform proactive safety interventions.

Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults?

METHODS

We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

Pediatric subspecialty health care providers' views of recruitment during a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention

Background

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling pediatric populations often struggle with recruitment. Engaging healthcare providers in the recruitment process may increase patients' and caregivers' willingness to participate in research. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of pediatric subspecialty healthcare providers considering recruiting patients to participate in an mobile health (mHealth) RCT.

Methods

We conducted 9 semi-structured interviews and 1 focus group with a total of N = 11 providers from various disciplines before the initiation of an mHealth RCT addressing medication nonadherence. Then, we conducted 5 follow-up interviews and 1 follow-up focus group with a total of 8 of these providers several months later. We used thematic analysis to generate themes describing providers' views of the RCT and patient recruitment.

Results

Providers indicated that they were willing to recruit for this study because they believed that the intervention sought to address a significant problem. They also thought it made sense to intervene using technology for this age group. However, many providers thought that certain patients (e.g., those with mild, shorter-lasting adherence difficulties) were the most appropriate to recruit. They described how keeping the trial front of mind facilitated recruitment, and they advised researchers to use strategies to promote their ongoing awareness of the study if conducting similar research in the future.

Conclusion

Pediatric healthcare providers are important stakeholders in mHealth intervention research. Engaging them in participant recruitment is a complex endeavor that might promote patient enrollment, but their views of research and demanding clinical roles are important to understand when designing study procedures.

Reflections on Including Patients in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Multicentre Trial in the Dying Phase - the SILENCE Study

A need exists for studies investigating symptom relief at the end of life. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for demonstrating efficacy of medication, but they are difficult to perform at the end of life due to barriers such as the vulnerability of patients, and gatekeeping by healthcare professionals. We analyzed and reflected on recruitment, participation, and strategies used in an RCT at the end of life. The SILENCE study, performed in six inpatient hospice facilities, was a placebo-controlled trial to study the effect of ScopolamIne butyLbromidE giveN prophylactiCally for dEath rattle in dying patients. We addressed patients' vulnerability by using an advance consent procedure, and potential gatekeeping by extensive training of health care professionals and the appointment of hospice doctors as daily responsible researchers. In almost three years, 1097 patients were admitted of whom 626 were eligible at first assessment. Of these, 119 (19%) dropped out because of physical deterioration before they could be informed about the study (44) or sign informed consent (75). Twenty-five (4%) patients were not asked to participate. In 24 cases (4%), relatives advised against the patient participating. Overall, 229 patients (37%) gave informed consent to participate. The vulnerability of patients was the most important barrier in this medication study at the end of life. Gatekeeping by HCPs and relatives occurred in a small number of patients. The robust design and applied strategies to facilitate patient recruitment in this study resulted in a successful study with sufficient participants.

Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient

Background

Perspectives of clinical trial (CT) personnel on accrual to oncology CTs are relatively absent from the literature. This study explores CT personnel's experience recruiting patients to oncology CTs.

Methods

A qualitative study design was utilized. In‐depth, individual interviews with 12 oncology CT personnel were conducted, including six CT nurses and six physician‐investigators. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subjected to thematic and ethical analysis to identify key concepts and themes.

Results

CT personnel reported considering two ethical commitments in CT recruitment: maintaining trial integrity and ensuring patient autonomy through obtaining informed consent. The process of gatekeeping emerged as a way to navigate these ethical commitments during CT accrual. Gatekeeping was influenced by: (a) perceptions of patients’ personal suitability for a trial, and (b) healthcare resources and infrastructure. CT personnel's discernment of personal suitability was influenced by patients’ cognitive and mental health status, language and cultural background, geographic location, family support, and disease status. Three structural factors impacted gatekeeping: complexity of CTs, consent process, and time limitations in the healthcare system. CT personnel experienced most factors as constraints to accrual and gaining patients’ informed consent.

Conclusion

CT personnel discussed navigating ethical challenges in CT recruitment by offering enrollment to specific patient populations, exacerbating other ethical tensions. Systems‐level strategies are needed to address barriers to ethical CT recruitment. Future research should investigate the role of policies and/or tools (eg, decision aids) to support patients and CT personnel's discussions about CT participation, promote more ethical recruitment, and potentially increase accrual.