Identifying patient values impacting the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials: A systematic review

Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials: a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients' decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention.

METHODS

This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients' initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one's fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients' values, but generally only gave 'contrasting' examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing.

CONCLUSIONS

While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.

Accentuating patient values in shared decision-making: A mixed methods development of an online value clarification tool and communication training in the context of early phase clinical cancer trials

OBJECTIVE

In the shared decision-making (SDM) process for potential early phase clinical cancer trial participation, value clarification is highly recommended. However, exploration and discussion of patient values between patients and oncologists remains limited. This study aims to develop an SDM-supportive intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) and a communication training.

METHODS

The OnVaCT intervention was developed and pilot-tested by combining theoretical notions on value clarification, with interview studies with patients and oncologists, focus groups with patient representatives and oncologists, and think aloud sessions with patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions. These human-centered methodologies enabled a user-centered approach at every step of the development process of the intervention.

RESULTS

This study shows relevant patient values and oncologists' perspectives on value exploration and discussion in daily practice. This has been combined with theoretical considerations into the creation of characters based on real-life experiences of patients in the OnVaCT, and how the tool is combined with a communication training for oncologists to improve SDM.

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients' decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials.

METHODS

Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients' common language about cancer and clinical trials.

RESULTS

Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one's fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one's fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients' emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial.

A Scoping Review of Strategies to Increase Black Enrollment and Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials

To address health disparities faced by Black patients with cancer, it is critical that researchers conducting cancer clinical trials (CCTs) equitably recruit and retain Black participants, develop strategies toward this aim, and document associated outcomes. This narrative scoping literature review, as part of a larger study, aimed to identify, describe, and categorize strategies and interventions intended to improve the recruitment and retention of Black participants with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, or multiple myeloma cancer into CCTs. We conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science with three main concepts: Black persons, neoplasms, and clinical trial recruitment. The search resulted in 1,506 articles, of which 15 met inclusion criteria. Five main categories of recruitment and retention strategies and interventions were identified based on their specific population focus and type of approach: (1) participant identification, (2) provider awareness/resources, (3) focused research staff interventions, (4) patient and community–focused awareness strategies, and (5) participant-directed resources. Thirteen studies had recruitment acceptance rates of over 30%. Eight studies with acceptance rates of ≥ 50% reported implementing ≥ 5 strategies, with an average use of seven strategies across multiple categories. Five studies with acceptance rates ≥ 50% implemented strategies in ≥ 3 categories. Four studies reported retention rates ≥ 74%. Three studies with reported retention rates ≥ 74% used strategies in ≥ 3 categories, and all included strategies aimed at meeting participant needs beyond the study. Our results show that many efforts that aim to increase the recruitment and retention of Black participants into CCTs have great potential, but the most promising strategies use a multiprong approach.

"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.

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials: Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing

When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (β = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (β = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (β = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (β = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict.