Cancer patients' fears related to clinical trial participation: a qualitative study

Public Awareness of Medical Research Terminology in Japan, and the Accuracy of Physicians' Predictions regarding that Awareness

One of the ethical principles of medical research involving human subjects is obtaining proper informed consent (IC). However, if the participants' actual awareness of medical research terminology is lower than the researchers' prediction of that awareness, it may cause difficulty obtaining proper IC. Therefore, this study aims to clarify the presence of "perception gaps" and then discuss IC-related issues and measures based on the insights obtained. We conducted two online surveys: a "public survey" to understand the Japanese public's awareness of 11 medical research terms and a "physicians' survey" to investigate physicians' predictions regarding public awareness. In the "public survey," for each term, respondents were instructed to select their situation from "understand," "have heard," or "have never heard." In the "physicians' survey," respondents were asked to estimate the proportions of the general public who would "have understood," "have heard," or "have never heard" by using an 11-step scale. We analyzed separately in two age groups to understand the age-related difference. We received 1002 valid responses for the "public survey" and 275 for the "physicians' survey." Of the public respondents, more than 80% had never heard of terms such as interventional study, prospective clinical study, cohort study, Phase I clinical trial, or double-blind study. Concurrently, physicians overestimated general public awareness of the terms placebo, cohort study, double-blind study, and randomized clinical trial (in the group of people under 60). The results revealed the perception gap between the general public and physicians which raise serious concerns about obtaining proper IC from clinical research participants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-023-00247-4.

Increasing Diversity of Patients in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

Radiation oncology clinical trials lack full representation of the ethnic and racial diversity present in the general United States and in the cancer patient population. There are low rates of both recruitment and enrollment of individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial backgrounds, especially Black and Hispanic patients, people with disabilities, and patients from underrepresented sexual and gender groups. Even if approached for enrollment, barriers such as mistrust in medical research stemming from historical abuse and contemporary biased systems, low socioeconomic status, and lack of awareness prohibit historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical trials. In this review, we reflect on these specific barriers and detail approaches to increase diversity of the patient population in radiation oncology clinical trials to better reflect the communities we serve. We hope that implementation of these approaches will increase the diversity of clinical trials patient populations in not only radiation oncology but also other medical specialties.

Experiences of a Multiethnic Cohort of Patients Enrolled in a Financial Reimbursement Program for Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Financial reimbursement programs (FRPs) offset out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses from therapeutic clinical trial (TCT) participation. The study explores patients' experience in TCTs after enrollment in a FRP at two academic medical centers, including barriers and opportunities to improve trial participation.

METHODS

From May 2019 to January 2020, adults diagnosed with cancer and eligible for TCTs and FRP were recruited from the Improving Patient Access to Cancer Clinical Trials randomized trial at the University of California San Francisco and University of Southern California. Patients with income ≤ 700% of national poverty guidelines were eligible. Semistructured interviews were conducted in patients' preferred language. Qualitative analysis was performed by site and preferred language by two independent coders.

RESULTS

Of 65 trial patients, 53 participated (38%, University of California San Francisco; 62%, USC). The median age was 59 (IQR, 46-65) years, and 58% were female. Nearly half (49%) identified as Latinx/Hispanic compared with 32% non-Hispanic White, 10% Asian, 4% Black, 1% Native American, and 4% Others. A third were non-English speakers, 42% had college education or more, and 55% were retired/unemployed. Most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (42%), breast (19%), and genitourinary (13%), and 66% had metastatic disease. Patients experienced long travel time (1-4.5 hours) among 57% and financial toxicity from OOP costs (68%). High acceptability of the FRP was reported (81%). Although 30% of patients reported willingness to discuss finances of cancer treatment/trial with physicians, majority (87%) preferred discussion with social workers or TCT staff. Proposed modifications to TCTs included decentralization, recruitment strategies, voucher structure, and established rates for OOP expenses.

CONCLUSION

Patients' experience with TCTs reveal financial and logistical stressors that may be lessened by the Improving Patient Access to Cancer Clinical Trial reimbursement program. FRPs may address inequities in clinical trial access among low-income and diverse populations.

The emotional side of taking part in a cancer clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Taking part in a cancer clinical trial often represents a source of psychological distress and emotional activation among patients and their caregivers. Nowadays, social media platforms provide a space for these groups to freely express and share their emotional experiences.

AIMS

We aimed to reveal the most prevalent basic and complex emotions and sentiments in the posts of the patients and caregivers contemplating clinical trials on Reddit. Additionally, we aimed to categorize the types of users and posts.

METHODS

With the use of keywords referring to clinical trials, we searched for public posts on the subreddit 'cancer'. R studio v. 4.1.2 (2021-11-01) and NRC Emotion Lexicon was used for analysis. Following the theoretical framework of Plutchik's wheel of emotions, the analysis included: 8 basic emotions (anger, fear, anticipation, trust, surprise, sadness, joy, and disgust) and 4 types of complex emotions (primary, secondary, tertiary, and opposite dyads). We utilized the package 'PyPlutchik' to visualize the emotion wheels in Python 3.10.5.

RESULTS

A total of 241 posts were included in the final database. User types (129 patients, 112 caregivers) and post types (142 expressed shared experience, 77 expressed advice, and 85 conveyed both) were identified. Both positive (N = 2557, M = .68) and negative (N = 2154, M = .57) sentiments were high. The most prevalent basic emotions were: fear (N = 1702, M = .45), sadness (N = 1494, M = .40), trust (N = 1470, M = .44), and anticipation (N = 1376, M = .37). The prevalence of complex/dyadic emotions and their interpretation is further discussed.

CONCLUSION

In this contribution, we identified and discussed prevalent emotions such as fear, sadness, optimism, hope, despair, and outrage that mirror the psychological state of users and affect the medical choices they make. The insights gained in our study contribute to the understanding of the barriers and reinforcers to participation in trials and can improve the ability of healthcare professionals to assist patients when confronted with this choice.

Experiences of participants in a clinical trial of a novel radioactive treatment for advanced prostate cancer: A nested, qualitative longitudinal study

Objectives

Qualitative studies nested within clinical trials can provide insight into the treatment experience, how this evolves over time and where improved supportive care is required. The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer participating in the TheraP trial; a randomised trial of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel chemotherapy.

Methods

Fifteen men with advanced prostate cancer were recruited from the TheraP clinical trial with interviews conducted at three timepoints during the trial. An interpretative phenomenological approach was used, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis. This research paper reports the results from the mid-point, conclusion and follow up interviews, focusing specifically on participants’ experiences of trial participation.

Results

Three themes were identified representing the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer participating in the TheraP trial: (1) facing limited options; (2) anticipating outcomes and (3) coping with health changes.

Conclusions

Men who enrol in clinical trial of anti-neoplastic treatments for prostate cancer need targeted psychological and supportive care that includes attention to unique aspects of the experience of having prostate cancer and being in a clinical trial. As part of their trial experience, men with advanced prostate cancer need to be regularly assessed for survivorship needs, fully informed, supported and referred to services for regular care and support across the trajectory of their disease.

Trial registration

NCT03392428. Registered on 8 January 2018 (ANZUP1603).

Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Existing research on the perspectives of patients with cancer and health care professionals indicates that patient decision making on cancer clinical trial participation is a complex process and may be poorly understood, possibly compromising their decision to participate. This systematic review investigates interventions that support patients in their decision-making processes regarding whether to participate or not and assesses the qualities of the interventions, measures used and related outcomes.

METHODS

Six databases were systematically searched and only studies evaluating interventions that support the decision making of adult patients offered to enter a cancer clinical trial were included. Ten articles met the criteria and were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

The research focus of the included studies reflected the multifactorial nature of what constitutes support for patient decision making in terms of entering a cancer clinical trial. However, most interventions were based on the hypothesis that more information leads to support in decision making, and did not take other factors, such as the relationship to the clinical staff or relatives, the patients' strong hope for therapeutic benefit or other existential needs into account. The interventions were primarily based on a specific tool, executed once, which seems to imply that decisions need only to be supported once and not at several time points throughout the decision process, and did not assess the importance of a patient's family- or social relations. Moreover, few interventions focused on the patients' counselling experience or assessed patient preferences in relation to decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate a lack of research on interventions to support patients' decision making that takes other factors, apart from improving knowledge of trials, into account. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of decision support interventions to improve the experience of support in adult patients with cancer. Interventions that take patient preferences in relation to decision making and the social context of decision processes into account need to be developed and assessed.

Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care

PURPOSE

Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

"It All Depends": Patient and Decision Partner Experiences in Cancer Clinical Trial Decision-Making

While the supporting role of families and friends has been widely recognized in cancer care, little data exist on how they influence patients' decisions regarding clinical trial participation, accounting for patients' decisional preferences. The goal of our study was to examine the process of clinical trial decision-making from the perspective of adults with cancer and their decision partners. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 decision partners-family and friends engaged in the medical decision-making. Themes included: (1) having the ability and confidence to make decisions; (2) gaining insight about clinical trials; (3) trusting someone in the process; and (4) realizing readiness and context. Our findings will enhance understanding of how patients make clinical trial decisions based on decisional preferences from the perspectives of patients and decision partners. The findings may also help to increase clinician awareness and inclusion of decision partners in conversations regarding clinical trials.

The psychosocial responses of patients in cancer clinical trials: are they a barrier to participation?

Introduction:

This paper aims to discuss the psychosocial concomitants with involvement in oncology clinical trials, focusing on barriers that can impact upon participation. It will conclude with some recommendations for strategies to address potential psychosocial barriers with the aim of increasing trial participation rates.

Materials and methods:

A literature search was carried out using CINAHL, PubMed and EMCare databases with the following keywords for filtering: psychological distress, clinical trials, participation and oncology. The final selection of papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review was manually subjected to Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for relevance.

Results:

Thirteen papers were included in the review. The dominant theme within the literature is psychosocial obstacles to oncology clinical trial participation. Five key barriers were identified: anxiety and fear; ethnicity and social background; tensions between scientific objectives and personal motivations to participation; tensions between personal benefits versus altruism; carer perspectives.

Conclusions:

The key barriers discussed led to the identification of a set of strategies to help mediate conflicting tensions and motivations of trial enrolment with a view to increasing participation rates. Further prospective research garnering primary data investigating both the psychological and psychosocial factors influencing cancer clinical trial participation for patients needs to be undertaken.

Patients' experiences of the decision-making process for clinical trial participation

Clinical decision‐making about participating in a clinical trial is a complex process influenced by overwhelming information about prognosis, disease, and treatment options. The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of the decision‐making process when patients are presented with the opportunity to participate in a cancer clinical trial and to shed light on how patients experience the health communication, the nurse's role, and the physician's role. A qualitative study design was applied. Nine patients with advanced cancer were interviewed after being informed about their treatment options. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results showed that patients made treatment decisions mainly guided by their emotions and trust in the physician. Furthermore, the physicians had a great impact on the decisions, and the nurse's role was associated with conversations about how to manage life. The study highlights the importance of talking about prognosis and addressing the patient's existential issues, particularly in this context of advanced cancer. The study elucidates a need for healthcare professionals to engage in health communication about life when it is coming to an end.

Feasibility of Conducting Long-term Health and Behaviors Follow up in Adolescents (Preprint)

Background

Machine learning uses algorithms that improve automatically through experience. This statistical learning approach is a natural extension of traditional statistical methods and can offer potential advantages for certain problems. The feasibility of using machine learning techniques in health care is predicated on access to a sufficient volume of data in a problem space.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of data collection from an adolescent population before and after a posterior spine fusion operation.

Methods

Both physical and psychosocial data were collected. Adolescents scheduled for a posterior spine fusion operation were approached when they were scheduled for the surgery. The study collected repeated measures of patient data, including at least 2 weeks prior to the operation and 6 months after the patients were discharged from the hospital. Patients were provided with a Fitbit Charge 4 (consumer-grade health tracker) and instructed to wear it as often as possible. A third-party web-based portal was used to collect and store the Fitbit data, and patients were trained on how to download and sync their personal device data on step counts, sleep time, and heart rate onto the web-based portal. Demographic and physiologic data recorded in the electronic medical record were retrieved from the hospital data warehouse. We evaluated changes in the patients’ psychological profile over time using several validated questionnaires (ie, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory). Questionnaires were administered to patients using Qualtrics software. Patients received the questionnaire prior to and during the hospitalization and again at 3 and 6 months postsurgery. We administered paper-based questionnaires for the self-report of daily pain scores and the use of analgesic medications.

Results

There were several challenges to data collection from the study population. Only 38% (32/84) of the patients we approached met eligibility criteria, and 50% (16/32) of the enrolled patients dropped out during the follow-up period—on average 17.6 weeks into the study. Of those who completed the study, 69% (9/13) reliably wore the Fitbit and downloaded data into the web-based portal. These patients also had a high response rate to the psychosocial surveys. However, none of the patients who finished the study completed the paper-based pain diary. There were no difficulties accessing the demographic and clinical data stored in the hospital data warehouse.

Conclusions

This study identifies several challenges to long-term medical follow-up in adolescents, including willingness to participate in these types of studies and compliance with the various data collection approaches. Several of these challenges—insufficient incentives and personal contact between researchers and patients—should be addressed in future studies.

Understanding Willingness to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials Among Patients and Caregivers Attending a Minority-Serving Academic Cancer Center

Advances in cancer treatment are impeded by low accrual rates of patients to cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The national rates of recruitment of underserved groups, including racial/ethnic minorities, are limiting the generalizability of research findings and are likely to enhance inequities in cancer outcomes. The goal of this study was to examine willingness to participate (WTP) in CCTs and factors associated with this willingness among patients and caregivers attending a minority-serving university cancer center in the Southwest. A cross-sectional survey design was utilized (n = 236, 135 patients and 101 caregivers). Fear was the strongest predictor of WTP in CCTs. The only ethnic differences observed related to Spanish-speaking patients exhibiting increased WTP in CCTs, and Spanish-speaking caregivers' decreased WTP, compared to others. These results underscore the importance of future interventions to reduce CCT-related fear among patients and caregivers, with particular need for family-focused tailored interventions designed to meet the needs of Spanish-speaking patients and caregivers.

Barriers and facilitators to the participation of subjects in clinical trials: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

The demand for clinical trial participants is today one of the highest it has ever been and continues to increase. At the same time, subject recruitment continues to be problematic and the major reason for clinical trial premature terminations. The literature on clinical trial recruitment, which spans several decades and includes hundreds of studies, has an abundance of findings that can be synthesized by way of an overview to provide a well-informed and complete picture of the factors that determine subject participation.

OBJECTIVES

An overview of the systematic reviews that report barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation was conducted. The extracted data were synthesized, and a thematic framework of the factors that affect subject participation in clinical trials was developed. The overview extended across medical subjects and demographics.

METHODS

Thirty reviews that complied with the inclusion criteria were included. These reviews covered 753 relevant primary studies and reported 881 barriers and facilitators. The barriers and facilitators were thematically synthesized and a thematic framework of 20 themes was developed. The quality of the included reviews was assessed and reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Several opportunities to increase clinical trial participation, by developing interventions and changing the trial design, derived from an analysis of the thematic framework. That analysis also showed that most of the 20 themes operate mainly as a barrier or as a facilitator, and that most have an effect across medical subjects. As to the quality elements assessed, some reviews complied almost fully but most only partially.

Navigating choice in the face of uncertainty: using a theory informed qualitative approach to identifying potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy trial

OBJECTIVES

Bench to bedside translation of groundbreaking treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy depends on patient participation in early phase trials. Unfortunately, many novel therapies fail to be adequately evaluated due to low recruitment rates, which slows patient access to emerging treatments. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we sought to identify potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial.

DESIGN

We used qualitative semistructured interviews to identify potential barriers and enablers to patients' hypothetical participation in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial. We used the TDF and directed content analysis to identify relevant domains based on frequency, relevance and the presence of conflicting beliefs.

PARTICIPANTS

Canadian adult patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies.

RESULTS

In total, we interviewed 13 participants (8 women, 5 men). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 73 (median=56) and had been living with haematological cancer from a few months to several years. We found participants were unfamiliar with CAR-T cell therapy but wished to know more about treatment safety, efficacy and trial logistics (domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences). They were motivated by altruistic considerations, though many prioritised personal health benefits despite recognising the goals (ie, establishing safety) of early phase clinical trials (domains: goals, intentions). Every participant valued receiving medical advice from their haematologists and oncologists, though some preferred impartial medical experts to inform their decision making (domain: social influences). Finally, participants indicated that improving access to financial and social supports would improve their trial participation experience (domain: environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSION

Using the TDF allowed us to identify factors that might undermine participation to a CAR-T cell therapy trial and to optimise recruitment processes by considering patient perspectives to taking part in early phase trials.Trial regestration: NCT03765177; Pre-results.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent

BACKGROUND

Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging.

AIM

To gain understanding of how patients make decisions regarding clinical trial participation, from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

In-depth, face to face interviews using a grounded theory approach. This study was conducted in a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Of the 36 interviews, 16 were conducted with patients with cancer that had non-curative intent and 18 with healthcare professionals involved in the consent process.

RESULTS

'Nothing to lose' was identified as the core category that underpinned all other data within the study. This highlighted the desperation articulated by participants, who asserted trial participation was the 'only hope in the room'. The decision regarding participation was taken within a 'trusting relationship' that was important to both patients and professionals. Both were united in their 'fight against cancer'. These two categories are critical in understanding the decision-making/consent process and are supported by other themes presented in the theoretical model.

CONCLUSION

This study presents an important insight into the complex and ethically contentious situation of consent in clinical trials that have non-curative intent. It confirms that patients with limited options trust their doctor and frequently hold unrealistic hopes for personal benefit. It highlights a need for further research to develop a more robust and context appropriate consent process.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

Evaluation of Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Attitudes Toward Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE:

Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) remains the lowest of any patient group with cancer. Little is known about the personal barriers to AYA accrual. The aim of this study was to explore AYA attitudes that influence CCT participation.

METHODS:

A mixed-methods approach was used. AYAs and non-AYAs (≥ 40 years) completed the Cancer Treatment subscale of the Attitudes Toward Cancer Trials Scales and 9 supplementary questions formed from interview analysis. Differences between AYA and non-AYA cohorts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the effect of demographics on perceptions of CCTs.

RESULTS:

Surveys were distributed to 61 AYAs (median age, 29 years; range, 17-39 years) and 74 non-AYAs (median age, 55 years; range, 40-88 years). Compared with non-AYAs, AYAs perceived CCTs to be unsafe/more difficult (Personal Barrier/Safety domain; P = .01). There were no differences based on age in other domains. AYAs were also more concerned with CCT interference in their long-term goals ( P = .04). Multivariable ordered logistic regression identified increased personal barriers in the Personal Barrier/Safety domain for AYAs ( P = .01), in patients with English as a second language (ESL; P < .01), and in patients previously not offered a clinical trial ( P = .03). Long-term goals were identified as a barrier in particular tumor types ( P = .01) and in patients with ESL ( P < .01), with a trend identified in AYAs ( P = .12).

CONCLUSION:

Age-related differences in attitudes toward CCTs suggest that tailored approaches to CCT accrual are warranted. Patient-centered delivery of information regarding CCTs, particularly in patients with ESL and who are trial naïve, may improve accrual.

A community-academic partnership to explore informational needs of African American women as a primer for cancer clinical trial recruitment

Background: African Americans (AAs) are less likely to participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) despite experiencing disproportionately higher rates of cancer mortality. As a way to address these ongoing disparities, this study sought to qualitatively explore informational needs regarding CCTs among AA women and identify message considerations for educational information targeting AA women and their community. Methods: Three focus groups were conducted in which AA women viewed a DVD created as a decisional tool for CCT participation and provided feedback regarding content. Results: Results indicated general fear regarding CCTs, which is partially attributable to the impact of historic research abuses, lack of information regarding CCTs, and lack of cultural relevance of the education and outreach materials for AA communities. Recruitment of AAs to CCTs may be enhanced by educational and outreach approaches that increase awareness of CCTs as well as involvement of the AA community in developing such interventions. Conclusion: Interventions should include the perspectives of AA women, as key stakeholders and decision-makers for their family and provide research information in a multimedia format that will facilitate family discussion and decision-making regarding CCTs.

The role of emotions in cancer patients' decision-making

Introduction

Despite the attempt to make decisions based on evidence, doctors still have to consider patients' choices which often involve other factors. In particular, emotions seem to influence the way that options and the surrounding information are interpreted and used.

Objective

The objective of the present review is to provide a brief overview of research on decision making and cancer with a specific focus on the role of emotions.

Method

Thirty-nine studies were identified and analysed. Most of the studies investigated anxiety and fear. Worry was the other psychological factor that, together with anxiety, played a crucial role in cancer-related decision-making.

Results

The roles of fear, anxiety and worry were described for detection behaviour, diagnosis, choice about prevention and curative treatments and help-seeking behaviour. Results were inconsistent among the studies. Results stressed that cognitive appraisal and emotional arousal (emotion's intensity level) interact in shaping the decision. Moderate levels of anxiety and worry improved decision-making, while low and high levels tended to have no effect or a hindering effect on decision making. Moderating factors played an under-investigated role.

Conclusions

Decision making is a complex non-linear process that is affected by several factors, such as, for example, personal knowledge, past experiences, individual differences and certainly emotions. Research studies should investigate further potential moderators of the effect of emotions on cancer-related choice. Big data and machine learning could be a good opportunity to test the interaction between a large amount of factors that is not feasible in traditional research. New technologies such as eHealth and virtual reality can offer support for the regulation of emotions and decision making.

Cancer patients' perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: A qualitative meta-synthesis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine cancer patients' perceptions of factors that may influence their decisions on participating in phase I-III clinical drug trials.

BACKGROUND

The number of cancer participants in clinical drug trials has increased rapidly in Denmark in recent years. The rights, safety and well-being of patients considering participation are protected by the international, ethical and scientific principles. A meta-synthesis was conducted to enable health professionals to support cancer patients who are considering trial participation in accordance with the above principles.

DESIGN

Meta-synthesis.

METHODS

A qualitative meta-synthesis, as described by Sandelowski and Barroso, was conducted based on a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Nine reports were found eligible and were included. The PRISMA checklist was used.

RESULTS

A framework was developed, and patients' perceptions of the factors influencing their decisions were identified, namely patients' perceptions of their relatives, the physician, the hope of therapeutic benefit, altruism, having other options and living with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cancer patients' decisions on participation in clinical drug trials are influenced by their perceptions of trust towards the physician, their relatives' attitudes and the consequences participation might have for their families. Patients are motivated to participate due to the hope of therapeutic benefit and for altruistic reasons. The factors influencing their decisions to participate include a cost-benefit consideration, which in turn may be subject to the patient's perception of having other options available besides participation. This may be related to the patient's attitude towards living with cancer, and the decision can be a way of trying to cope with the psychological aspects of living with cancer.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of this meta-synthesis offer insight into patients' perceptions of what may influence their decisions, and they enable health professionals to support patients making such decisions.

Perceptions and attitudes toward clinical trials in adolescent and young adults with cancer: a systematic review

Purpose

Although cancer clinical trials (CT) offer opportunities for novel treatments that may lead to improved outcomes, adolescents and young adults (AYA) are less likely to participate in these trials as compared to younger children and older adults. We aimed to identify the perceptions and attitudes toward CT in AYA that influence trial participation.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of cancer literature was conducted that assessed perceptions and attitudes toward CT enrollment limited to AYA patients (defined as age 15–39). We estimated the frequency of identified themes by pooling identified studies.

Results

In total, six original research articles were identified that specifically addressed perceptions or attitudes that influenced CT participation in AYA patients. Three studies were conducted at pediatric centers – one at an AYA unit, one at an adult cancer hospital, and one was registry based. Major themes identified for CT acceptability included: hope for positive clinical affect, altruism, and having autonomy. Potential deterrents included: prolonged hospitalization, worry of side effects, and discomfort with experimentation.

Conclusion

Limited information is available with regard to the perceptions and attitudes toward CT acceptability among AYA patients, especially those treated at adult cancer centers, which prevents generalization of data and themes. Future research assessing strategies for understanding and supporting CT decision-making processes among AYA represents a key focus for future funding to improve CT enrollment.

Raising Public Awareness of Clinical Trials: Development of Messages for a National Health Communication Campaign

Clinical trials are essential for developing new and effective treatments and improving patient quality of life; however, many trials cannot answer their primary research questions because they fall short of their recruitment goals. This article reports the results of formative research conducted in two populations, the public and primary care physicians, to identify messages that may raise awareness and increase interest in clinical trials and be used in a national communication campaign. Results suggested that participants were primarily motivated to participate in clinical trials out of a self-interest to help themselves first. Messages illustrated that current treatments were tested via clinical trials, helped normalize trials as routine practices, and reduced concerns over trying something new first. Participants wanted messages that portray trials as state-of-the-art choices that offer some hope, show people like themselves, and are described in a clear, concise manner with actionable steps for them to take. The study revealed some differences in message salience, with healthy audiences exhibiting lower levels of interest. Our results suggest that targeted messages are needed, and that communication with primary health-care providers is an important and necessary component in raising patient awareness of the importance of clinical trials.

Patient and family member perspectives on searching for cancer clinical trials: A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials are vital in the context of ovarian cancer and may offer further treatment options during disease recurrence, yet enrollment remains low. Understanding patient and family member experiences with identifying trials can inform engagement and education efforts.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 33 patients who had experience with clinical trial conversations and 39 nominated family members. Thematic analysis examined experiences and generated findings for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Trial conversations with providers at diagnosis were uncommon and often overwhelming. Most participants delayed engagement until later in the disease course. With hindsight, though, some wished they considered trials earlier. Difficulty identifying appropriate trials led some to defer searching to providers, but then they worried about missed opportunities. Most family members felt unqualified to search.

CONCLUSION

Trial conversations during clinical encounters should start early and include specifying search responsibilities of providers, patients, and family. Patients and family members can be engaged in searches but need guidance.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Trials should be discussed throughout the disease course, even if patients are not ready to participate or are not making a treatment decision. Education should focus on identifying trials that meet search criteria. Transparency regarding each individual's role in identifying trials is critical.

Organizational development trajectory of a large academic radiotherapy department set up similarly to a prospective clinical trial: the MAASTRO experience

Objective:

To simultaneously improve patient care processes and clinical research activities by starting a hypothesis-driven reorganization trajectory mimicking the rigorous methodology of a prospective clinical trial.

Methods:

The design of this reorganization trajectory was based on the model of a prospective trial. It consisted of (1) listing problems and analysing their potential causes, (2) defining interventions, (3) defining end points and (4) measuring the effect of the interventions (i.e. at baseline and after 1 and 2 years). The primary end point for patient care was the number of organizational root causes of incidents/near incidents; for clinical research, it was the number of patients in trials. There were several secondary end points. We analysed the data using two sample z-tests, χ² test, a Mann–Whitney U test and the one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction.

Results:

The number of organizational root causes was reduced by 27% (p < 0.001). There was no effect on the percentage of patients included in trials.

Conclusion:

The reorganizational trajectory was successful for the primary end point of patient care and had no effect on clinical research. Some confounding events hampered our ability to draw strong conclusions. Nevertheless, the transparency of this approach can give medical professionals more confidence in moving forward with other organizational changes in the same way.

Advances in knowledge:

This article is novel because managerial interventions were set up similarly to a prospective clinical trial. This study is the first of its kind in radiotherapy, and this approach can contribute to discussions about the effectiveness of managerial interventions.

Attitudinal barriers to participation in oncology clinical trials: factor analysis and correlates of barriers

Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is low. Little is known about attitudinal barriers to participation, particularly among patients who may be offered a trial during an imminent initial oncology consult. The aims of the present study were to confirm the presence of proposed subscales of a recently developed cancer clinical trial attitudinal barriers measure, describe the most common cancer clinical trials attitudinal barriers, and evaluate socio-demographic, medical and financial factors associated with attitudinal barriers. A total of 1256 patients completed a survey assessing demographic factors, perceived financial burden, prior trial participation and attitudinal barriers to clinical trials participation. Results of a factor analysis did not confirm the presence of the proposed four attitudinal barriers subscale/factors. Rather, a single factor represented the best fit to the data. The most highly-rated barriers were fear of side-effects, worry about health insurance and efficacy concerns. Results suggested that less educated patients, patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with no previous oncology clinical trial participation, and patients reporting greater perceived financial burden from cancer care were associated with higher barriers. These patients may need extra attention in terms of decisional support. Overall, patients with fewer personal resources (education, financial issues) report more attitudinal barriers and should be targeted for additional decisional support.

Knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy as predictors of preparedness for oncology clinical trials: a mediational model

OBJECTIVE

This study used the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to evaluate a model examining associations between clinical trial knowledge, attitudinal barriers to participating in clinical trials, clinical trial self-efficacy, and clinical trial preparedness among 1256 cancer patients seen for their first outpatient consultation at a cancer center. As an exploratory aim, moderator effects for gender, race/ethnicity, education, and metastatic status on associations in the model were evaluated.

METHODS

. Patients completed measures of cancer clinical trial knowledge, attitudinal barriers, self-efficacy, and preparedness. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to evaluate whether self-efficacy mediated the association between knowledge and barriers with preparedness.

RESULTS

. The SEM explained 26% of the variance in cancer clinical trial preparedness. Self-efficacy mediated the associations between attitudinal barriers and preparedness, but self-efficacy did not mediate the knowledge-preparedness relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

. Findings partially support the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and suggest that assessing patients' level of self-efficacy may be just as important as evaluating their knowledge and attitudes about cancer clinical trials.

Barriers to study enrollment in patients with advanced cancer referred to a phase I clinical trials unit

We conducted this retrospective study to identify reasons that patients referred to a phase I clinical trial failed to enroll or delayed enrollment onto the trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcome analyses were conducted independently on data collected from electronic medical records of two sets of consecutive patients referred to a phase I clinical trial facility at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Data from the first set of 300 patients were used to determine relevant variables affecting enrollment; data from the second set of 957 patients were then analyzed for these variables.

RESULTS

Results from the two sets of patients were similar. Approximately 55% of patients were enrolled in a phase I trial. Patients referred from within MD Anderson were more likely to be enrolled than patients seen originally outside the institution (p = .006); black patients were more likely than white patients to enroll (69% vs. 43%; p = .04). The median interval from the initial visit to initiation of treatments was 19 days. Major reasons for failure to enroll included failure to return to the clinic (36%), opting for treatment in another clinic (17%), hospice referral (11%), early death (10%), and lack of financial clearance (5%). Treatment was delayed for three weeks or more in 250 patients; in 85 patients (34%), the delay was caused by financial and insurance issues.

CONCLUSION

Failure to return to the clinic, pursuit of other therapy, and rapid deterioration were the major reasons for failure to enroll; lengthy financial clearance was the most common reason for delayed enrollment onto a phase I trial.

The bottleneck effect in lung cancer clinical trials

Clinical trials provide the most promising way to improve treatment outcomes in cancer. This study examined the rate at which eligible patients with lung cancer, at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the South, were offered a clinical trial and explored for reasons for ineligibility. We retrospectively reviewed 300 randomly selected lung cancer patients' medical records seen in 2010, to assess clinical trial offers to eligible patients, reasons for not offering an eligible patient a trial, demographic factors associated with eligibility, and reasons for refusal among those offered a trial. Of the 300 patient charts, seven were excluded for lack of confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Forty-six of the remaining 293 (15.7%) patients were eligible for a clinical trial. Forty-five of the 46 (97.8%) were considered for a trial by their oncologist. Thirty-five of the 45 (77.8%) were offered a trial: 15 agreed (42.9% of those offered, 5.1% of patients reviewed), 11 declined, and 9 were undecided at the end of the review window. Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status levels and small cell (SC) diagnoses were significantly less likely to be eligible for a trial. Results suggest that oncologists at the cancer center are effectively presenting all eligible patients with the option of a clinical trial; however, there is a need to increase the number of approved clinical trials for patients with SC or ECOG score greater than 2.

Development of a cancer clinical trials multi-media intervention: clinical trials: are they right for you?

OBJECTIVE

To describe processes used to develop a multi-media psycho-educational intervention to prepare patients for a discussion about cancer clinical trials (CTs).

METHODS

Guided by a Steering Committee, formative research was conducted to develop an informative and engaging tool about cancer CTs. Twenty-three patients and caregivers participated in formative in-depth interviews to elicit information about perceptions of cancer CTs to inform production of a new media product.

RESULTS

Formative research revealed participants had concerns about experimentation, held beliefs that cancer CTs were for patients who had no other treatment options, and wanted a balance of information about pros and cons of CT participation. The value of physicians as credible spokespersons and the use of patients as role-models were supported. Using iterative processes, the production team infused the results into creation of a multimedia psycho-educational intervention titled Clinical Trials: Are they Right for You?

CONCLUSION

An intervention, developed through an iterative consumer-focused process involving multiple stakeholders and formative research, may result in an engaging informative product.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

If found to be efficacious, Clinical Trials: Are they Right for You? is a low-cost and easily disseminated multimedia psycho-educational intervention to assist cancer patients with making an informed decision about cancer CTs.