Information for cancer patients entering a clinical trial--an evaluation of an information strategy

Information needs of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive early-stage breast cancer considering adjuvant endocrine therapy

OBJECTIVE

To identify questions that post-menopausal women with receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer want answered before their adjuvant-endocrine-therapy decision is made.

METHODS

We surveyed patients eligible for adjuvant-endocrine therapy in the previous 3-18 months. Participants rated the importance of getting each of 95 questions answered before the decision is made (options: essential/desired/not important or no opinion/avoid). For each question rated "essential"/"desired", the participant also identified the purpose(s) for the answer: to help her understand, decide, plan, or other reason(s).

RESULTS

The response rate was 55% (188/343). Participants rated a mean of 57 (range: 1-95) questions "essential", 80 (range: 1-95) "essential" or "desired", and 2 (range: 0-27) "avoid". Every question was "essential" to ≥31% of participants, and "essential"/"desired" to ≥63%. All but eleven questions were rated as "avoid" by ≥1 participant. The most frequent purposes for "essential" questions were to: understand their situations (mean 45, range: 0-95), decide (mean 18, range: 0-94), and plan (mean 13, range: 0-95).

CONCLUSION

Many patients want a lot of information before this decision is made but there is wide variation within the group in both the number and in which questions they want answered.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient education in this setting needs to be tailored to the needs of the individual patient.

Feasibility and desirability of web-based mental health screening and individualized education for female OEF/OIF reserve and national guard war veterans

Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) Reserve and National Guard (RNG) service members have an increased risk for postdeployment mental health (MH) and readjustment problems, yet most do not access needed care. It is unknown if RNG servicewomen experiencing postdeployment readjustment symptoms are aware these may signify treatable MH concerns or if this knowledge activates care-seeking. The aims of this proof-of-concept study were to determine the feasibility of web-based MH screening for postdeployment MH symptoms to inform individualized psychoeducation, and to assess user perceptions about the online instrument and process, MH care access, and VA and other MH care. A midwestern sample (N = 131) of recently deployed (past 24 months) OEF/OIF RNG Army and Air Force servicewomen participated. High rates of combat experiences (95%) and military sexual trauma (50%) were reported. Positive screens for key symptoms of MH problems were prevalent. One third (31%) of satisfaction survey completers indicated online information reduced discomfort with seeking MH care; 42% reported they would subsequently seek MH assessment. Participants interviewed by telephone indicated that stigma and limited knowledge about women-specific services were key reasons servicewomen do not use MH care. This study demonstrated web-based screenings with individualized psychoeducation are implementable and favorable to RNG servicewomen.

Neuropsychological impairment corresponds with poor understanding of informed consent disclosures in persons diagnosed with major depression

Incapacity to make decisions about medical treatment is associated with neuropsychological impairment in a variety of illnesses. Although cognitive deficits occur often in people with major depressive illness, little research has studied its association with decisional capacity. The present investigation examined ability to understand treatment disclosures, which is a core component of decisional capacity, in 31 inpatients with depression and 16 normal controls. Depressed inpatients with diminished neuropsychological function showed poor understanding of treatment disclosures compared to the control group. Nonetheless, with sufficient cueing, depressed inpatients with diminished neuropsychological function were able to display understanding that was equivalent to the control group. Exploratory regression analyses revealed that diminished new-learning correlated with poorer understanding. Implications of these results for clinical practice and medical research involving people with major depressive illness are discussed.

Capacity to make medical treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis: a potentially remediable deficit

Ability to make decisions about medical treatment is compromised in significant numbers of people with neurological and psychiatric illness, and this incapacity frequently corresponds with compromised neuropsychological function. Although cognitive deficits occur often in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), no research has studied decisional capacity in that disease. The present investigation examined ability to understand treatment disclosures, which is a core component of decisional capacity, in 36 people with MS and 16 normal controls. MS patients with diminished neuropsychological function showed poor understanding of treatment disclosures compared to the control group, and diminished new learning and executive function correlated with poorer understanding. Nonetheless, with sufficient cuing, the MS patients with diminished neuropsychological function were able to display understanding that was equivalent to that of the control group. Implications of these results for clinical practice and medical research involving people with MS are discussed.

Information needs of early-stage prostate cancer patients: a comparison of nine countries

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Providing information to patients can improve their medical and psychological outcomes. We sought to identify core information needs common to most early-stage prostate cancer patients in participating countries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Convenience samples of patients treated 3-24 months earlier were surveyed in Canada, England, Italy, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey. Each participant rated the importance of addressing each of 92 questions in the diagnosis-to-treatment decision interval (essential/desired/no opinion/avoid). Multivariate modelling determined the extent of variance accounted by covariates, and produced an unbiased prediction of the proportion of essential responses for each question.

RESULTS

Six hundred and fifty-nine patients responded (response rates 45-77%). On average, 35-53 questions were essential within each country; similar questions were essential to most patients in most countries. Beyond cross-country similarities, each country showed wide variability in the number and which questions were essential. Multivariate modelling showed an adjusted R-squared with predictors country, age, education, and treatment group of only 6% of the variance. A core of 20 questions were predicted to be essential to >2/3 of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Core information can be identified across countries. However, providing the core should only be a first step; each country should then provide information tailored to the needs of the individual patient.

Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a critical component of clinical research. Different methods of presenting information to potential participants of clinical trials may improve the informed consent process. Audio-visual interventions (presented for example on the Internet, DVD, or video cassette) are one such method.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of providing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision, to potential clinical trial participants in the informed consent process, in terms of their satisfaction, understanding and recall of information about the study, level of anxiety and their decision whether or not to participate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register (searched 20 June 2006); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2006; MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to June week 1 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to 2006 week 24); and other databases. We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and contacted study authors and experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision (such as written or oral information as usually employed in the particular service setting), with standard forms of information provision alone, in the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials involved individuals or their guardians asked to participate in a real (not hypothetical) clinical study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity no meta-analysis was possible; we present the findings in a narrative review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 4 trials involving data from 511 people. Studies were set in the USA and Canada. Three were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the fourth a quasi-randomised trial. Their quality was mixed and results should be interpreted with caution. Considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of audio-visual interventions, compared with standard forms of information provision (such as written or oral information normally used in the particular setting), for use in the process of obtaining informed consent for clinical trials. Audio-visual interventions did not consistently increase participants' levels of knowledge/understanding (assessed in four studies), although one study showed better retention of knowledge amongst intervention recipients. An audio-visual intervention may transiently increase people's willingness to participate in trials (one study), but this was not sustained at two to four weeks post-intervention. Perceived worth of the trial did not appear to be influenced by an audio-visual intervention (one study), but another study suggested that the quality of information disclosed may be enhanced by an audio-visual intervention. Many relevant outcomes including harms were not measured. The heterogeneity in results may reflect the differences in intervention design, content and delivery, the populations studied and the diverse methods of outcome assessment in included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The value of audio-visual interventions for people considering participating in clinical trials remains unclear. Evidence is mixed as to whether audio-visual interventions enhance people's knowledge of the trial they are considering entering, and/or the health condition the trial is designed to address; one study showed improved retention of knowledge amongst intervention recipients. The intervention may also have small positive effects on the quality of information disclosed, and may increase willingness to participate in the short-term; however the evidence is weak. There were no data for several primary outcomes, including harms. In the absence of clear results, triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants. Further research should take the form of high-quality randomised controlled trials, with clear reporting of methods. Studies should conduct content assessment of audio-visual and other innovative interventions for people of differing levels of understanding and education; also for different age and cultural groups. Researchers should assess systematically the effects of different intervention components and delivery characteristics, and should involve consumers in intervention development. Studies should assess additional outcomes relevant to individuals' decisional capacity, using validated tools, including satisfaction; anxiety; and adherence to the subsequent trial protocol.

Interventions before consultations for helping patients address their information needs

BACKGROUND

Patients often do not get the information they require from doctors and nurses. To address this problem, interventions directed at patients to help them gather information in their healthcare consultations have been proposed and tested.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions which are delivered before consultations, and which have been designed to help patients (and/or their representatives) address their information needs within consultations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library (issue 3 2006); MEDLINE (1966 to September 2006); EMBASE (1980 to September 2006); PsycINFO (1985 to September 2006); and other databases, with no language restriction. We also searched reference lists of articles and related reviews, and handsearched Patient Education and Counseling (1986 to September 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions before consultations designed to encourage question asking and information gathering by the patient.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two researchers assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of five outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials, from 6 countries and in a range of settings. A total of 8244 patients was randomised and entered into studies. The most common interventions were question checklists and patient coaching. Most interventions were delivered immediately before the consultations.Commonly-occurring outcomes were: question asking, patient participation, patient anxiety, knowledge, satisfaction and consultation length. A minority of studies showed positive effects for these outcomes. Meta-analyses, however, showed small and statistically significant increases for question asking (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.36)) and patient satisfaction (SMD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.16)). There was a notable but not statistically significant decrease in patient anxiety before consultations (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.56 (95% CI -7.10 to 3.97)). There were small and not statistically significant changes in patient anxiety after consultations (reduced) (SMD -0.08 (95%CI -0.22 to 0.06)), patient knowledge (reduced) (SMD -0.34 (95% CI -0.94 to 0.25)), and consultation length (increased) (SMD 0.10 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.25)). Further analyses showed that both coaching and written materials produced similar effects on question asking but that coaching produced a smaller increase in consultation length and a larger increase in patient satisfaction. Interventions immediately before consultations led to a small and statistically significant increase in consultation length, whereas those implemented some time before the consultation had no effect. Both interventions immediately before the consultation and those some time before it led to small increases in patient satisfaction, but this was only statistically significant for those immediately before the consultation. There appear to be no clear benefits from clinician training in addition to patient interventions, although the evidence is limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions before consultations designed to help patients address their information needs within consultations produce limited benefits to patients. Further research could explore whether the quality of questions is increased, whether anxiety before consultations is reduced, the effects on other outcomes and the impact of training and the timing of interventions. More studies need to consider the timing of interventions and possibly the type of training provided to clinicians.

A purpose-based evaluation of information for patients: an approach to measuring effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, internal reliability, and validity, of an assessment tool, purpose-based information assessment (PIA), that we had developed to evaluate how effectively information provided to patients addresses their individual purposes for the information. The study also demonstrated potential novel insight gained by the PIA assessment.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-two patients and family members were provided with a booklet on early-stage prostate cancer and its treatment options, in the context of a clinical trial comparing two booklets. Using the PIA, participants rated the importance (4-point Likert scale) of each of six previously identified common purposes for such information: to organize their thoughts, to understand their situation, to decide on treatment, to plan their future, to provide emotional support to others, and to discuss issues. Participants then rated how much their booklet helped address each of their purposes (4-point Likert scale). Evaluations were returned by mail. This report assesses the PIA evaluation of one of the booklets.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six (86%) participants returned evaluations. Participants wanted information for a mean of 5.8 purposes (range 2-7); 72.5% rated the booklet at different levels of helpfulness across their purposes. The assessment showed internal reliability on three constructs tested, and convergent validity on 10 of 11 tested. PIA's individualized purpose-based approach revealed how an overall assessment could be misleading: overall, the booklet was more effective at helping readers decide than at helping them plan (64.7% versus 55.8%, respectively, rated the booklet as "helpful" or better). However, among readers who rated the two purposes as "very important", the booklet had a mean helpfulness rating of 1.95 for deciding compared to a mean of 2.02 for planning. The result suggests that the booklet was not better at helping people decide than at helping them plan, for the readers who most needed the help.

CONCLUSION

The PIA seems reliable and valid and adequately sensitive. The individualized purpose-based approach to assessing information appears to provide more specific feedback and more insights into its effectiveness than a single, global evaluation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Developers of information source or educational tools for patients can use an individualized purpose-based assessment, such as the PIA, to identify strengths and limitations of the tools more precisely than global assessments.

[Perceptions of patients and physicians involved in clinical trials: an overview of the literature]

OBJECTIVE - METHOD: The purpose of this review is to explore the expectations of patients and physicians prior to participate to a clinical trial and their positive or negative experiences after participating. A systematic review of Medline database from 1966 to 2005 identified 79 papers reported patients and physicians perceptions of clinical trials (only 3 in French), whom 27 English surveys conducted on patients and physicians.

RESULTS

If primary patients' motivation for enrolment was altruistic, physicians wish to help their patient. After enrolment, the most perceived positive benefit for patients and physicians are, respectively, the emotional improvement and the greater opportunity for personal benefit offered to enrolled patients. Most physicians' negative experience included logistical difficulties while patients are unease with randomisation and often uncomfortable with medical procedures. Unlike patients, all physicians' expectations seem to be fulfilled.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of patients' and physicians' perception of participation may improve recruitment in clinical trials.

Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions

PURPOSE

To compare relative accuracy and relative response times (RTs) as well as impact of foreground and background colors in a treatment decision context of judging larger/smaller when the following elements are added to the graphics studied previously: 1) a number (the displayed percentage), 2) a referent scale, and 3) a number and a referent scale.

METHOD

An experiment compared pie charts, vertical bars, horizontal bars, digits, systematic ovals, and random ovals. On each trial, participants saw 2 percentages (in 1 format) and were asked to choose the larger chance of survival or the smaller chance of side effects. Outcomes were errors and RT. Formats were either black and white or blue and yellow; background color was either white or blue. Participants were 216 volunteers from the community older than 50 years.

RESULTS

Formats with a number produced the same relative errors and relative RT as the formats with a number and scale. Formats with only a scale, however, shifted relative performance: Errors increased with more difficult formats (pie charts and random ovals by 3%-4% v. approximately 1% with other formats), but RT decreased with easier formats (vertical bars, horizontal bars, and systematic ovals decreased 100-200 ms v. an increase of 0-300 ms with other formats). Vertical bars with scales were the fastest and most accurately processed. Neither foreground nor background color had any impact on either outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

For supporting older people's judgments of relative extent, risk information is best presented using vertical bars with a scale; the format systematic ovals with a scale are among the next most easily processed.

Perception des essais cliniques par les patients et les investigateurs : enquête à l’hôpital Neuro-Cardiologique de Lyon

OBJECTIVES

We report the first survey on French physicians and patients participating to assess motivations prior enrolment and benefits and constraints perceived after participation.

METHOD

Twenty physicians were interviewed and 37 patients completed a questionnaire during clinical study participation.

RESULTS

If the main patient's motivation is altruistic, physician wish their own patient feel better. After participation, patient is satisfied with being part of a research effort and contributing to medical science. Effect of trial treatment on physical well-being seems less pronounced. Main constraint is the randomisation to placebo group. For physicians, the main benefit is getting research experience and training. Main constraints are logistical. Otherwise, perceptions on the same clinical trial depend on participant. In fact, physician usually overestimates constraints of clinical trial for patient.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of patients and physicians perceptions of clinical trials and its taking into account should probably reduce difficulties in the recruitment in France.

Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials

Participation in clinical trials remains low and is a central issue in oncology. The authors identified, through a systematic review, 75 papers published up to August 2004 that report barriers to recruitment of patients in clinical trials. These barriers range from patient preference and concern about information/consent to clinical problems with protocols. Strategies to overcome barriers on the part of patients and clinicians are needed and should be carefully evaluated. Thirty-three (44%) papers reported factors related to patients as influencing the inclusion of patients, 28 (37%) reported clinician's related factors, and 37 (49%) other factors from either specific groups of patients (30 papers, 40%) and/or other scopes (13 papers, 17%). No differences in prevalence were found between papers dedicated to hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Factors related to clinicians as influential were more frequently reported before 1995 (70%) than thereafter (25%; P = 0.0009). Reporting specific groups of patients as influential was more frequent in North American articles (50%) than in others (14%, P = 0.008). Patients' barriers included mostly patient preference (12 papers), concern about information and/or consent (11 papers), worry about uncertainty (7 papers), and/or relationship with medical team (7 papers). Concerning clinicians, incompatibility of protocol with normal practice (nine papers), problems in complying with the protocol (eight papers), and/or consent procedure (eight papers) were the most reported factors. The remaining factors mostly relied on specific groups of patients (30 papers), notably age of patients (18 papers) and/or minority population (11 papers, all from the USA). Strategies to overcome these barriers are needed and should be carefully evaluated.

Stability of parental understanding of random assignment in childhood leukemia trials: an empirical examination of informed consent

PURPOSE

To examine stability versus change in parental understanding of random assignment in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for pediatric leukemia and to identify factors associated with changes in understanding.

METHODS

Eighty-four parents of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute myeloid leukemia who were enrolled onto a pediatric leukemia RCT at one of six US children's hospitals participated. Parents were interviewed twice, once within 48 hours after the Informed Consent Conference (ICC; time 1 [T1]) and again 6 months later (time 2 [T2]). Interviews focused on parental understanding of key components of the RCT, including random assignment. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and later analyzed.

RESULTS

Changes in understanding of random assignment occurred in 19% of parents, with 17% of parents deteriorating in understanding from T1 to T2. Forty-nine percent of parents failed to understand random assignment at both times. Factors associated with understanding at both times included majority ethnicity, high socioeconomic status, parental reading of consent document, and presence of a nurse during the ICC. Physician discussion of specific components of the RCT was also associated with understanding at both times. Female caregivers and parents of low socioeconomic status were overrepresented among those who showed decay in understanding from T1 to T2.

CONCLUSION

Parents showed little gain in understanding over time. Factors that predicted understanding at diagnosis as well as sustained understanding over time may be important intervention targets. Attention to both modifiable and nonmodifiable barriers is important for clinical practice.

Assessment of the impact of a patient clinical trials handbook among pharmacy students

BACKGROUND

Patient education in the basic concepts of clinical trials is necessary to promote understanding of the informed consent process and enhance patients' decision-making. It has been suggested that patients' knowledge and attitudes are improved by being given general written information about clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study was conducted to determine the effect of a patient education handbook on the knowledge, attitudes, and motivations of pharmacy students regarding clinical trials.

METHODS

A patient clinical trials handbook was developed at a 7th-grade reading level for the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and tested in PharmD students. Students were randomized to the experimental group (received handbook) or the control group (no handbook). They were given 15 to 20 minutes to read the handbook, after which they were asked to respond to a questionnaire adapted from previous studies. The questionnaire included 25 true/false questions testing participants' knowledge of clinical trials, 5 questions on attitudes toward clinical trials scored on a 5-point Likert scale, and 6 questions concerning their motivation toward participation in hypothetical clinical trial scenarios scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The experimental group was also asked to rate the informativeness, helpfulness, and clarity of the handbook on a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

There were 40 students in the experimental group and 50 in the control group. Knowledge scores were significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control group (mean [SD] percentage of correct answers, 88.7% [8.0%] vs 82.6% [9.0%], respectively; P < 0.001). Positive attitudes toward clinical trials were also increased in the experimental group compared with the control group; specifically, participants expressed significantly greater clarity of understanding of clinical trials (mean score, 1.4 [0.5] vs 0.8 [0.6]; P < 0.001) and relief associated with knowing about clinical trials (mean score, 0.8 [0.8] vs 0.4 [0.7]; P = 0.017). There were no between-group differences in students' motivation to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial scenarios. A high proportion of students (95%) found the handbook informative, helpful, and understandable.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient clinical trials handbook increased knowledge and positive attitudes regarding clinical trials among pharmacy students participating in this study.

Knowledge of oral cancer, distress and screening intentions: longer term effects of a patient information leaflet

Study aim was to determine the influence of a patient information leaflet (PIL) on mouth cancer to improve knowledge, reduce distress and increase intention to accept a mouth screen over a 2-month period. The design was a randomised controlled trial. Two dental practices in the northwest of England participated. Standardised multi-item scales of the three outcome measures were employed. The PIL was given to a randomised intervention group of patients in waiting room. Single sheet questionnaire was completed by both groups of patients at baseline in waiting room (immediately following leaflet administration in intervention arm of study). Repeat questionnaire completion at 8 weeks by all patients through postal system. Mann-Whitney U-tests comparing outcome variables between patients with and without access to the leaflet at baseline and 8 weeks were performed. Multiple logistic regression was used to predict re-reading of the leaflet at home. Useable replies were received from 317 patients (60% response rate). All measures showed some benefit of immediate exposure to the leaflet at follow up. Older patients, less initial knowledge, and self-reported smoking positively predicted the re-reading of the leaflet. The introduction of a mouth cancer PIL into dental practice may help to inform patients about oral cancer, moderate distress and encourage acceptance of an oral health screen.

The influence of protocol pain and risk on patients' willingness to consent for clinical studies: a randomized trial

We tested the hypothesis that the risk or discomfort associated with a clinical trial influence patients' decisions to participate. Simultaneously, we evaluated factors likely to influence patients' decisions such as understanding of the risk and discomfort associated with the study, patient age, educational level, and psychological status. With IRB approval, participants, who believed they were being asked to participate in a real trial, were presented one of three sham protocols: no risk or pain (Control, n = 48), pain but no risk (Pain, n = 51), or risk but no pain (Risk, n = 51). Patients were debriefed at the end of the interview. Our major outcome measures were (a) understanding risk or pain associated with the proposed studies, (b) the extent to which patients felt pressured to participate, and (c) willingness to participate. Whereas understanding was similar in all groups (Control, 68%; Pain, 67%; and Risk, 72%), willingness to participate differed significantly (Control, 64%; Pain, 35%; Risk, 26%; P < 0.001). Patients who understood the level of risk or pain associated with the protocols were twice as likely to participate than those who did not (49% versus 24%; P = 0.003). Nine percent agreed to participate in the risky or painful protocols without understanding the risks involved. Patients who felt pressured did not agree to participate. Thus, the consent process protected patients, although for unexpected reasons. Understanding was poor, but patients who did not understand the risks or pain involved or who felt pressured rarely consented. Consequently, relatively few patients unknowingly agreed to participate in risky or painful studies.

Attitudes towards clinical research amongst participants and nonparticipants

OBJECTIVES

To investigate attitudes to clinical research amongst cancer trial participants and nonparticipants, and to compare results with those from previous studies amongst participants in noncancer trials.

DESIGN

Trial participating respondents were given three questionnaires during the clinical trials. Respondents amongst patients declining randomization answered a single questionnaire.

SETTING

Participants and nonparticipants in randomized clinical cancer trials.

SUBJECTS

Forty-one participants and 47 nonparticipants in cancer trials.

RESULTS

Altruistic motives of physicians to conduct medical research were highly rated. Attitudes towards clinical research were positive in all groups, with nonparticipant respondents being the least positive. Eight to nine tenths found scientific testing necessary before general health service implementation. Trial participants were, as compared with nonparticipating respondents, more positive towards both participation of self and others. Both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. Primary reasons for nonparticipation were fear of 'the unknown' and/or unease with randomization. Only a minority felt a moral problem created by declining trial participation. Respondents amongst noncancer participants were more satisfied with the information given than both cancer participants and cancer nonparticipants. Negative experiences in cancer participants generally dealt with frustration related to seeing too many physicians at check-up appointments.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes towards clinical research are generally positive even in cancer nonparticipants. Both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. A fear of 'the unknown' and resentments towards randomization were primary reasons to renounce participation. Seeing too many physicians at check-up appointments seems to be an important factor for negative experiences in cancer trial participants.

Informed consent and decision-making: patients' experiences of the process of recruitment to phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials

This paper presents an examination of the process of recruitment in cancer clinical trials. This research was undertaken as part of a larger study which sought to assess the psychosocial impact of participation in phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials from the patient's perspective. Through a combination of in-depth interviews with 55 patients who were offered participation in a clinical trial, and reading ease assessments of the written information they were given, patients' experiences of recruitment to the trial and their perceptions of the informed consent process were obtained. The results indicate that patients decisions may be influenced by the way information was presented to them verbally and that the written information was difficult for them to understand. This aspect of the research identified the powerful influence of the verbal consultation when seeking consent for trial involvement, the lack of understanding patients had of what they were taking part in and the need to address the readability of the written information with which they are provided.

Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research

Institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent have recently come under increasing scrutiny. The provision of appropriate and understandable information and its comprehension are key elements of the informed consent process. This article examines how literacy and other factors might impact on comprehension of the information provided. Better understanding of these issues and how to best address them are crucial to allowing clinical research subjects to participate as well-informed and willing partners in scientific inquiry.

Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leaflets

Much has been written about how to communicate with patients, but there has been little critical scrutiny of this literature. This paper presents an analysis of publications about the use of patient information leaflets. It suggests that two discourses can be distinguished in this literature. The first of these is the larger of the two. It reflects traditional biomedical concerns and it invokes a mechanistic model of communication in which patients are characterised as passive and open to manipulation in the interests of a biomedical agenda. The persistence of the biomedical model in this discourse is contrasted with the second discourse, which is smaller and more recent in origin. This second discourse draws on a political agenda of patient empowerment, and reflects this in its choice of outcomes of interest, its concern with the use of leaflets as a means of democratisation, and its orientation towards patients. It is suggested that the two discourses, though distinct, are not entirely discrete, and may begin to draw closer as they begin to draw on a wider set of resources, including sociological research and theory, to develop a rigorous theoretically grounded approach to patient information leaflets.

Should patients have control over their own health care?: empirical evidence and research issues

Available research indicates that purported patient insufficiencies in ability to process information and make rational and reliable decisions have likely been overestimated. Furthermore, data indicate that nonscientific factors often play a role in physician decision-making and that physicians may not value different health outcomes in the same way as patients. Though the data on patient cognitive functioning are limited because of heavy reliance on patient responses in hypothetical versus actual decision-making situations, these findings lend credence to arguments that patients should have increased control over their own health care. Research on the effects of interventions designed to enhance patient control indicates that: (a) patients generally respond positively to increased information, but few studies have evaluated the effects of information as a precursor to decision-making; (b) the few studies using simple behavioral control interventions have shown generally positive effects on a range of patient outcomes; and (c) studies of decisional control (with breast cancer patients) have had experimental confounds which prohibit conclusions regarding effectiveness. Areas in greatest need of research include: (a) further exploration of the utility of noninvasive behavioral control interventions in different settings; (b) measuring the impact of control manipulations on patient perception of control as well as patient control-related behaviors; (c) matching patient differences in desire for control to experimental conditions and to physician differences in receptiveness to patient control; and (d) clinical trials in which patients facing critical decisions in trade-off situations are actually given a choice.

Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of participants in two non-cancer trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate attitudes to clinical trials in non-cancer trial participants.

DESIGN

Questionnaires at entry, during, and after participation in a clinical study.

SETTING

Participants in: (i) ROC: a clinical study comparing systemic interferon-alpha-2A treatment vs. prednisolone enemas in ulcerative colitis; and (ii) MRCRUC: a clinical study investigating low-field magnetic resonance imaging as a new modality for the evaluation of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

SUBJECTS

Thirty-two patients in ROC and 47 patients in MRCRUC.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes towards different aspects of clinical research.

RESULTS

The majority found scientific testing of clinical methods necessary, having positive attitudes towards both participation by themselves and others. The creation of a personal moral problem by denying participation was rejected by a large majority, and still both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. An important motive for accepting inclusion was the expectation of being 'a special patient' during the trial. The presence of research ethics committees controlling clinical research had a significant positive impact on decisions to participate, and drawing lots and blinding were found problematic by only a minority. Patients valued their satisfaction with participation in the trials highly, and would almost all accept a request to participate in future trials. The most important reason for this was a feeling of receiving better care and information than expected outside a trial setting, primarily determined by the patients seeing only one physician during the trials. A pronounced wish to obtain follow-up information was expressed.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes towards medical research are positive with both altruistic and nonaltruistic motives for participation. Expectations of being treated as 'a special patient' in the trial were important in accepting to participate. Seeing the same physician at control visits was an important factor for satisfaction with participation.

Information and communication in the context of a clinical trial

The aim of this study was to determine the communicative needs of the patients in the context of being invited to participate in a clinical trial. A questionnaire was sent to 299 patients with breast cancer randomised in a trial of adjuvant therapy. It was returned by 261 (87%) of them. Ninety-one per cent (231/255) of the patients regarded the information provided as easy or quite easy to understand. However, the method of treatment allocation was unclear to most patients: 51% (128/251) thought that the doctor had chosen the treatment while only 23% (57/251) knew that they had been randomised. Younger and better educated patients had a better understanding. For 55% (125/226) of the patients written information had been helpful in decision making. This correlated highly with the education of the patient. Sixty-eight per cent (174/255) of the patients thought that they had enough time for decision-making. Less educated patients and older patients had needed more time. Eighty-seven per cent (218/251) were happy with their decision to participate. While most patients are satisfied with the information received, there is a poor understanding of how treatment is allocated. Information should be modified for older and less-educated patients. The needs of the patients when offered participation in a clinical trial are clear information, enough time to consider the options and psychological support.

Information presentation and decisions to enter clinical trials: a hypothetical trial of hormone replacement therapy

We examined recruitment to an imaginary trial of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) following two different styles of information about HRT. We predicted that for treatments which, like HRT, are available outside a trial, people offered the facts as currently known would be less likely to remain unsure about the relative costs and benefits, and so less likely to agree to enter a randomised trial. In contrast, when the information provided reflected the current state of uncertainty which justified the trial, we predicted that people would be less likely to form a preference for one treatment arm over the other, and so more likely to agree to enter a trial. One hundred women aged 25-40 years were informed about HRT via a video and an information leaflet. For half the participants the information was framed in a way which emphasised the current state of uncertainty about the relative costs and benefits of HRT, and in that respect it reflected the justification for a trial. This version was considered to be similar in style to information commonly provided to potential trial participants. For half the participants the same information was framed in a way which offered explicit numerical detail about currently known facts, and in that respect it was considered to be similar in style to information commonly available to doctors prior to a trial. Women learned as much about HRT in the two conditions, but women given the explicit versions were more likely (i) to hold a stronger view about whether or not they would take HRT (ratings were not elicited from the first 30 participants in this condition. N = 20, p < 0.05 1 tailed) and (ii) to refuse entry to the trial (N = 50, p < 0.05 2 tailed). Those who, given the explicit version, agreed rather than refused to enter the trial, scored higher on believing that others control their health (p < 0.01 2 tailed).

Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions

The study was designed to determine which formats for displaying quantities, such as probabilities of treatment risks and benefits, are perceived most accurately and easily by patients. Accuracy and speed of processing were compared for six different presentation formats: pie charts, vertical bars, horizontal bars, numbers, systematic ovals, and random ovals. Quantities were used in two tasks: a choice task that required larger/smaller judgments and an estimate task that required more precise evaluation. The impacts of blue-yellow color and of a treatment-decision context on performance in the two tasks were also investigated. The study included four experiments. Taken together the results suggest that the formats best for making a choice differ from those best for estimating the size of an amount. For making a choice, vertical bars, horizontal bars, numbers, and systematic ovals were equally well perceived; pie charts and random ovals caused slower and less accurate performances. For estimating, numbers led to the most accurate estimates, followed by systematic ovals. The other four formats led to the least accurate estimates. Color and context did not alter which formats were best.

What questions do patients with curable prostate cancer want answered?

PURPOSE

To determine the questions that recently diagnosed early-stage prostate cancer patients think should be addressed with patients like themselves.

STUDY POPULATION

56 patients diagnosed as having early-stage prostate cancer within the previous year.

METHODS

Surveys distributed to the patients included 93 questions that might be considered important. Respondents judged the importance (essential/desired/no opinion/avoid) of addressing each question, and indicated why those "essential" or "desired" were important.

RESULTS

38 patients (68%) responded. Agreement on question importance, overall, was rather poor (mean 41.6%, kappa 0.17). There were, however, 20 questions that at least 67% of the respondents agreed were essential to address and 12 that they agreed were not essential. No question was relevant to the treatment decisions of more than 50% of respondents, but 91 questions were relevant to at least one respondent's decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was enough agreement to define a core set of questions that should be addressed with most patients, each of the remaining questions was also considered essential to some people. The core set, therefore, would not be adequate to satisfy any one patient's essential information needs. Whereas most questions would be needed to cover all patients' decision needs, only some are needed for any given patient. Such variability in information needs means that the subjective standard is the only viable legal standard for judging the adequacy of provision of information for the treatment decision.

Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

METHOD

A systematic review of three bibliographic databases from 1986 to 1996 identified 78 papers reporting barriers to recruitment of clinicians and patients to randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Clinician barriers included: time constraints, lack of staff and training, worry about the impact on the doctor-patient relationship, concern for patients, loss of professional autonomy, difficulty with the consent procedure, lack of rewards and recognition, and an insufficiently interesting question. Patient barriers included: additional demands of the trial, patient preferences, worry caused by uncertainty, and concerns about information and consent.

CONCLUSIONS

To overcome barriers to clinician recruitment, the trial should address an important research question and the protocol and data collection should be as straightforward as possible. The demands on clinicians and patients should be kept to a minimum. Dedicated research staff may be required to support clinical staff and patients. The recruitment aspects of a randomised controlled trial should be carefully planned and piloted. Further work is needed to quantify the extent of problems associated with clinician and patient participation, and proper evaluation is required of strategies to overcome barriers.

Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care

Communication within oncology is a core clinical skill but one in which few oncologists or specialist cancer nurses have received much formal training. Inadequate communication may cause much distress for patients and their families, who often want considerably more information than is usually provided. Many patients leave consultations unsure about the diagnosis and prognosis, confused about the meaning of--and need for--further diagnostic tests, unclear about the management plan and uncertain about the true therapeutic intent of treatment. Additionally, communication difficulties may impede the recruitment of patients to clinical trials, delaying the introduction of efficacious new treatments into clinics. Lack of effective communication between specialists and departments can also cause confusion and a loss of confidence amongst the team. Oncologists themselves acknowledge that insufficient training in communication and management skills is a major factor contributing to their own stress, lack of job satisfaction and emotional burnout. Consequently, over the past few years there have been several initiatives aimed at improving basic communication skills training for healthcare professionals in the cancer field. In this paper, some of the issues that influence communication within an oncology setting, and ultimately affect patient care, are discussed.

How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?

As part of a larger study designed to improve doctor-patient communication in randomised clinical trials (RCT), we audiotaped the discussions between doctor and patient in which consent was being obtained for a RCT. This paper reports on 82 discussions conducted by 5 clinical oncologists in both District General and University Hospital outpatient departments. When introducing the subject of trials, uncertainty about treatment decisions was expressed by the doctors in the majority of cases (79, 96.3%). This was most often stated in a general sense (78, 95.1%), but some mentioned personal uncertainty (12, 14.6%), an approach which helps to maintain a trusting doctor-patient relationship. The word randomization was mentioned in 51 (62.2%) consultations, although the process itself was usually described implicitly (78, 95.1%), e.g. by telling the patient that they would be allocated either one or other treatment. Analogies were used in 28 (34.1%) cases to describe the randomisation process. In addition, although treatments and side-effects were described frequently, (68, 82.9%) and (72, 87.8%) respectively, information leaflets about the trials were not given to 23 (28%) patients. The study shows that U.K. clinicians adopt individual methods when providing information and eliciting consent to trials.

Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of the public and out-patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate attitudes to clinical research amongst potential research participants.

DESIGN

Questionnaire-survey.

SETTING

Two medical out-patient clinics and the background population.

SUBJECTS

A total of 508 randomly selected citizens in Copenhagen County (64% responded) and 200 consecutive patients attending the out-patient clinics (64% responded).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes toward different aspects of clinical research.

RESULTS

Positive attitudes toward medical research were disclosed. The majority found scientific testing necessary, although only a minority considered participation a moral obligation. Both personal benefits and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated, whereas former positive experiences from trial participation had only minor impact on decisions. Several respondents stated former trial participation had changed their attitudes negatively. Lack of feedback of results was of major importance for this change. Attitudes are significantly influenced by the presence of independent research ethics committees, whereas trial technicalities such as drawing lots and blinding was found problematic by only a few respondents. Altruistic motives of physicians to conduct trials were highly rated by a majority of respondents, but the motive of promoting doctors' careers was also judged important. Respondents rated nondiscomforting procedures as acceptable or having only a small impact or strain on their lives.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes toward medical research are positive amongst out-patients and the general public. Altruistic and nonaltruistic motives both concerning trial participation and concerning the motives of physicians to conduct medical research were rated highly. Lack of feedback concerning results of trials to participants was important for a negative change in attitude toward participation.

Informed consent for clinical trials: in search of the "best" method

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on comparisons between different methods of obtaining informed consent for clinical trials.

DESIGN

Eight hundred and twelve articles were traced, in the process of conducting a systematic review of the ethics of clinical trials, by searching a number of sources: bibliographic databases (Medline, Psychlit and BIDS science and social science indices), hand searches, personal contacts, an original collection and a systematic follow-up of reference lists. Fourteen research reports were found which provided comparative data on different methods of obtaining informed consent. Eleven of these used a randomised design. Studies were classified according to three outcome measures (anxiety, consent rate and understanding).

RESULTS

The results of the various studies suggest that giving people more information and more time to reflect tends to be associated with a lower consent rate. There seems to be an optimal level of information about side-effects such that patients are not overburdened by detail, while grasping the most important risks. More information in general is associated with greater awareness of the research nature of the trial, voluntariness of participation, right to withdraw and (available) alternative treatments. This result does not, however, extend to explanations of the concept of randomisation on which the literature is contradictory--sometimes more information is associated with increased understanding of the concept and sometimes it is not. Although divulging less information seems to be associated with less anxiety, there is evidence of an interaction with knowledge--high levels of knowledge are significantly associated with less anxiety, irrespective of consent method. The more that patients know before they are invited to participate in a trial, the better equipped they are to cope with the informed consent procedure.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence to suggest that there is an optimal amount of information which enhances patient understanding and which might, in turn, reduce anxiety. However. the studies were not altogether conclusive. More work needs to be carried out, especially on public understanding of science and on how different ways of explaining scientific concepts affect that understanding.

Colorectal cancer screening and follow-up

Cancer of the colon and rectum is a significant health problem in the United States. Nearly 50% of the 186,000 patients diagnosed annually with colorectal cancer will eventually die of their disease. Because development of a colorectal carcinoma is most frequently preceded by the development of a well-recognized pre-malignant lesion, screening modalities can significantly impact the incidence and mortality rate of this disease. Population screening employing digital rectal examination, fecal occult blood testing and endoscopic examination of the rectum and colon has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of death from colorectal cancer. Screening regimens should be instituted at an earlier age and with increased frequency for patients in the highest risk categories. Patients who have been treated for a cancer of the colon or rectum should undergo surveillance at regular intervals in an attempt to identify recurrences of disease both in the residual colon and rectum and at distant sites. Most physicians and patients believe that intensive follow-up strategies will afford improved survival and quality of life, however few randomized studies examining the utility of intensive follow-up programs have been performed and the quality of cancer-related follow-up literature is generally poor. Good-quality clinical trials are needed to sort out which tests make a difference in the patient's long-term outcome. The algorithm for surveillance for recurrence in the future may be altered as newer testing modalities are developed.

Getting meaningful informed consent from older adults: a structured literature review of empirical research

OBJECTIVES

To perform a structured literature review of the published empirical research on informed consent with older adults in order to make recommendations to improve the informed consent process and to highlight areas needing further examination.

DESIGN

Relevant literature was identified by searching electronic databases (AGELINE, BIOETHICSLINE, CancerLit, Ethics Index, Health, LegalTrac, MEDLINE, PAIS International, PsycInfo, and Sociofile). Studies were included if they were reports of primary research data about informed consent and, if patients or other subjects were used, older subjects were included in the sample. Data related to the aspect of informed consent under study (recruitment, decision-making capacity, voluntariness, disclosure of information, understanding of information, consent forms, authorization, and policies and procedures) were abstracted and entered into a specially designed database.

MEASUREMENTS

Characterization of the population, age of subjects, setting, whether informed consent was being studied in the context of research or treatment, study design, the nature of outcome or dependent variables, independent variables (e.g., experimental conditions in a randomized controlled trial or patient/subject characteristics in a nonrandomized comparison), and results according to the aspect of informed consent under study.

RESULTS

A total of 99 articles met all the inclusion criteria and posed 289 unique research questions covering a wide range of aspects of informed consent: recruitment (60); decision making capacity (21); voluntariness (6); disclosure (30); understanding (139); consent forms (7); authorization (11); policies (13); and other (2). In the secondary analyses of numerous studies, diminished understanding of informed consent information was associated with older age and fewer years of education. Older age was also sometimes associated with decreased participation in research. Studies of disclosure of informed consent information suggest strategies to improve understanding and include a variety of novel formats (e.g., simplified, storybook, video) and procedures (e.g., use of health educators, quizzing subjects, multiple disclosure sessions).

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of the published literature on informed consent reveals evidence for impaired understanding of informed consent information in older subjects and those with less formal education. Effective strategies to improve the understanding of informed consent information should be considered when designing materials, forms, policies, and procedures for obtaining informed consent. Other than empirical research that has investigated disclosure and understanding of informed consent information, little systematic research has examined other aspects of the informed consent process. This deficit should be rectified to ensure that the rights and interests of patients and of human subjects who participate in research are adequately protected.

Investigating psychosocial aspects of participation in early anti-cancer drug trials: towards a choice of methodology

This paper presents the methodological approach and research methods chosen to explore psychosocial aspects of participation in early anti-cancer drug trials from the perspective of those actually involved. The paper describes how an appropriate methodology, or principles of reasoning behind the choice of research methods, emerged. The choice of methodology was based on three elements: first, an understanding of the competing philosophies about how research can be approached and conducted; second, the author's view of the subject area; and third, a consideration of previous research approaches which have investigated psychosocial aspects of cancer clinical trials. A qualitative methodology situated within an interpretative paradigm was eventually chosen as the most appropriate means of exploring trial participants' experiences and the aim and objectives of the research were developed within this methodological framework.

Treatment and clinical trials decisionmaking: the impact of the Cancer Information Service. Part 5

The Cancer Information Service (CIS) provides accurate, up-to-date information to cancer patients, their families, the general public, and health professionals. In 1996, the CIS telephone service received 208,971 calls from people with questions about cancer treatments and clinical trials (total calls = 500,000). Cancer information specialists are trained and certified to access the PDQ database of treatment options and clinical trials, to translate medical information into understandable terms in order to help callers make treatment decisions, and to discuss clinical trials proactively. A telephone service user survey was conducted to assess the satisfaction and impact of the assistance and information provided to CIS callers. Almost half of the callers (46% of those calling for treatment information, 50% calling for clinical trial information) discussed the CIS information with a physician. Over half (55% treatment, 54% clinical trial) said the information helped them make a treatment decision. Twenty-four percent of treatment and 64% of clinical trial callers had enrolled in or had considered a clinical trial. Almost all (95%) were satisfied with information received from the CIS. The authors find that the CIS is fulfilling its role in disseminating information on cancer treatment and clinical trials through its telephone service. The CIS proactively educates treatment callers about clinical trials. However, the CIS needs to apply other strategies to reach medically underserved populations. Although most callers were able to understand the information, clinical trial callers found the information more difficult than did treatment callers. The CIS is working to simplify written clinical trial information.

Evaluating the benefits of a patient information video during the informed consent process

The study objective was to evaluate the effect of a patient information video during the informed consent process of a perinatal trial. Ninety women, between 19 and 33 weeks gestation, were randomised to receive written information about this perinatal trial and watch an information video or to receive written information only. Participants completed a questionnaire immediately after entry and 2-4 weeks later assessing knowledge of; feelings about the worth of; and willingness for future participation in the perinatal trial. When initially asked, more women who watched the video thought they would consent to the study (chi 2 = 6.3; df = 1; P = 0.01). No differences in knowledge about the perinatal trial were found initially, but 2-4 weeks later more knowledge had been retained by women who had watched the video (chi 2 = 6.7; df = 1; P = 0.01). These results suggest that a patient information video combined with an information sheet may result in greater participation in a research trial and may increase women's knowledge of a specific health problem and related research trial.

Ethical and practical problems of early anti-cancer drug trials: a review of the literature

Early clinical trials for new anti-cancer drug treatments typically use patients with cancer as research subjects. This paper identifies some of the ethical and practical concerns that arise from the recruitment of a vulnerable group of patients and their exposure to a drug of unknown risk or benefit. This review discusses the ethical principles related to recruitment and informed consent in cancer trials, and indicates that there is a lack of consensus concerning the requirements, process and practice of informed consent. It is suggested that, as yet, little is known about patients' decision making framework in this situation, and the need for further work that concentrates on the patient's point of view is highlighted. The paper concludes by discussing some of the difficulties associated with obtaining patients' opinions, and suggests that the use of a qualitative approach may overcome some of these problems.

Informed consent in clinical trials

A review is provided in this paper on the empirical literature on informed consent from 1979 to 1995 referring to information disclosure and trial participation in clinical trials. Articles being reviewed focus upon information disclosure, reactions to disclosure and recall, features of consent and perceptions of informed consent, both in hypothetical and in real life situations. It is concluded that further research is needed to study the process of informed consent in clinical trials, to obtain a better insight into the myth and reality of informed consent in daily practice. Future studies should come forward on the limitations of previous empirical research on informed consent. Additional research should focus on the perspectives of patients who accept or decline trial participation.

Informed versus randomised consent to clinical trials

We compared different procedures for seeking consent to participate in a sham randomised clinical trial and assessed whether refusal is affected by awareness of the severity of outlook. 2035 healthy subjects aged between 20 and 80 years, who visited a scientific exhibition, were enrolled in a hypothetical trial of experimental versus standard therapy, and randomly assigned to groups asked for conventional informed consent or prerandomisation consent. There were four study groups: one-sided informed consent for randomisation (subjects who refused would receive standard treatment); two-sided informed consent for randomisation (subjects who refused could choose between standard and experimental treatment); randomised consent to experimental treatment (subjects who refused would receive standard treatment); and randomised consent to standard treatment (subjects who refused would receive experimental treatment). The refusal rates were 16.2%, 19.9%, 12.1%, and 49.2%, respectively. The perceived severity of the simulated disease affected the refusal rate: the worse the outlook, the lower the refusal rate for informed consent or for consent after randomisation to new treatment, and the higher the refusal rate for consent after randomisation to standard treatment. The prerandomisation design seems to be efficient in a one-sided clinical scenario (eg, a trial of a new drug that would not be given outside the trial) because the refusal rate was substantially lower for prerandomisation to the new treatment than for conventional one-sided informed consent. However, in a two-sided clinical scenario (eg, a trial comparing similar treatments) the prerandomisation design is potentially highly inefficient; the refusal rate was much higher for prerandomisation to standard treatment than for conventional two-sided informed consent.