Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials:

Single-Cell Transcriptomics Sheds Light on Tumor Evolution: Perspectives from City of Hope's Clinical Trial Teams

Tumor heterogeneity is a significant factor influencing cancer treatment effectiveness and can arise from genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic variations among cancer cells. Understanding how tumor heterogeneity impacts tumor evolution and therapy response can lead to more effective treatments and improved patient outcomes. Traditional bulk genomic approaches fail to provide insights into cellular-level events, whereas single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) offers transcriptomic analysis at the individual cell level, advancing our understanding of tumor growth, progression, and drug response. However, implementing single-cell approaches in clinical trials involves challenges, such as obtaining high-quality cells, technical variability, and the need for complex computational analysis. Effective implementation of single-cell genomics in clinical trials requires a collaborative "Team Medicine" approach, leveraging shared resources, expertise, and workflows. Here, we describe key technical considerations in implementing the collection of research biopsies and lessons learned from integrating scRNA-seq into City of Hope's clinical trial design, highlighting collaborative efforts between computational and clinical teams across breast, brain, and ovarian cancer studies to understand the composition, phenotypic state, and underlying resistance mechanisms within the tumor microenvironment.

The mediating effect of shared decision-making in enhancing patient satisfaction with participation in cancer clinical trials

Objective

The participation of patients with advanced cancer(s) in clinical trials is vital for new drug development. We aimed to investigate patients' decision-making processes and satisfaction with their decision (SWD) to participate; the study's purpose was to provide results that can help support high-quality research in clinical trials. In addition, we explored how shared decision-making (SDM) mediates the relationship between understanding informed consent forms and SWD to participate in a clinical trial.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. A purposive sample of 111 cancer patients was recruited, and they completed a questionnaire on demographic characteristics, SDM, and decision-making satisfaction to participate in a clinical trial. Correlation and mediation analyses were used.

Results

Participants aged under 65 years and with higher education reported high SWDs, and SDM significantly mediated the relationship between self-assessed understanding of informed consent forms and SWDs related to clinical trials.

Conclusions

SDM in patients with lung or liver cancer was a significant mediator between understanding the informed consent form and the patient's SWD. The higher the SWD level of participating in clinical trials, the better study team members' SDM involvement and the better the comprehension of informed consent forms. In addition, patients' age and education level should also be considered as influencing factors in SWD. This survey is the first in Taiwan to examine SDM in drug-related clinical trials. The study results provide evidence to support SDM in a clinical trial model and develop informed consent process policies in research facilities.

Clinical reasoning in pragmatic trial randomization: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials, because they study widely used treatments in settings of routine practice, require intensive participation from clinicians who determine whether patients can be enrolled. Clinicians are often conflicted between their therapeutic obligation to patients and their willingness to enroll them in trials in which treatments are randomly determined and thus potentially suboptimal. Refusal to enroll eligible patients can hinder trial completion and damage generalizability. In order to help evaluate and mitigate clinician refusal, this qualitative study examined how clinicians reason about whether to randomize eligible patients.

METHODS

We performed interviews with 29 anesthesiologists who participated in REGAIN, a multicenter pragmatic randomized trial comparing spinal and general anesthesia in hip fracture. Interviews included a chart-stimulated section in which physicians described their reasoning pertaining to specific eligible patients as well as a general semi-structured section about their views on clinical research. Guided by a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analyzed data via coding, synthesized thematic patterns using focused coding, and developed an explanation using abduction.

RESULTS

Anesthesiologists perceived their main clinical function as preventing peri- and intraoperative complications. In some cases, they used prototype-based reasoning to determine whether patients with contraindications should be randomized; in others, they used probabilistic reasoning. These modes of reasoning involved different types of uncertainty. In contrast, anesthesiologists expressed confidence about anesthetic options when they accepted patients for randomization. Anesthesiologists saw themselves as having a fiduciary responsibility to patients and thus did not hesitate to communicate their inclinations, even when this complicated trial recruitment. Nevertheless, they voiced strong support for clinical research, stating that their involvement was mainly hindered by production pressure and workflow disruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that prominent ways of assessing clinician decisions about trial randomization are based on questionable assumptions about clinical reasoning. Close examination of routine clinical practice, attuned to the features of clinical reasoning we reveal here, will help both in evaluating clinicians' enrollment determinations in specific trials and in anticipating and responding to them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence After Hip Fracture (REGAIN).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT02507505. Prospectively registered on July 24, 2015.

Development and preliminary evaluation of tablet computer-based decision aid for patients participating in cancer clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

Patients often consent to participate in cancer clinical trials despite misunderstanding the trial content. We developed a tablet-based clinical trial decision aid and tested its use with the usual discussion at the time of clinical trial registration.

METHODS

Participants were individuals considering participating in a breast cancer clinical trial. The control participated in usual discussions; the intervention group participated in discussion using the decision aid. Pre- and post-discussion, we investigated knowledge, decision-making conflict, and discussion length.

RESULTS

We enrolled 54 patients, 27 in the control group and 27 in the intervention group. Post-discussion clinical trial knowledge was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (p = 0.003). No significant difference was found in decisional conflict, but the intervention group tended to have lower post-discussion conflict than the control group. There was no between-group difference in the length of discussions with physicians and clinical research coordinators.

CONCLUSION

For women considering participation in cancer clinical trials, a tablet-based decision aid may promote clinical trial understanding without increasing discussion length or patient burden. This pre-learning decision aid incorporating a quiz and bidirectional question prompt lists may improve participants' understanding of clinical trials.

A clinically applicable gene expression-based score predicts resistance to induction treatment in acute myeloid leukemia

Prediction of resistant disease at initial diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can be achieved with high accuracy using cytogenetic data and 29 gene expression markers (Predictive Score 29 Medical Research Council; PS29MRC). Our aim was to establish PS29MRC as a clinically usable assay by using the widely implemented NanoString platform and further validate the classifier in a more recently treated patient cohort. Analyses were performed on 351 patients with newly diagnosed AML intensively treated within the German AML Cooperative Group registry. As a continuous variable, PS29MRC performed best in predicting induction failure in comparison with previously published risk models. The classifier was strongly associated with overall survival. We were able to establish a previously defined cutoff that allows classifier dichotomization (PS29MRCdic). PS29MRCdic significantly identified induction failure with 59% sensitivity, 77% specificity, and 72% overall accuracy (odds ratio, 4.81; P = 4.15 × 10-10). PS29MRCdic was able to improve the European Leukemia Network 2017 (ELN-2017) risk classification within every category. The median overall survival with high PS29MRCdic was 1.8 years compared with 4.3 years for low-risk patients. In multivariate analysis including ELN-2017 and clinical and genetic markers, only age and PS29MRCdic were independent predictors of refractory disease. In patients aged ≥60 years, only PS29MRCdic remained as a significant variable. In summary, we confirmed PS29MRC as a valuable classifier to identify high-risk patients with AML. Risk classification can still be refined beyond ELN-2017, and predictive classifiers might facilitate clinical trials focusing on these high-risk patients with AML.

Oncology patients' experiences in experimental medicine cancer trials: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of experimental cancer medicine (ECM) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The study's design was qualitative. Two focus groups with patients were undertaken followed by semistructured interviews, to explore patients' experiences of ECM clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

A regional cancer centre (tertiary care) in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve patients (aged 52-79) participated in one of the two focus groups and 22 patients (aged 42-83) participated in interviews.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients' experiences of an ECM trial.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified from the analysis: decision making, information needs, the experience of trial participation and impact of trial participation. Subthemes are presented in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

To make fully informed decisions about trial participation, patients required the simplification of trial information and wanted more information about side effects, their response to trial treatment and the overall trial progress throughout the trial. Patients highlighted the need for improvement for the support provided to their family and friends.

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials

BACKGROUND

Alternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC.

METHODS

Qualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe et al (2016) model for recruitment to trials.

RESULTS

We analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required.

Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19: critiquing the impact of disease public profile on policy and clinical decision-making

The controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an antimalarial drug, for COVID-19 has raised numerous ethical and policy problems. Since the suggestion that HCQ has potential for COVID-19, there have been varying responses from clinicians and healthcare institutions, ranging from adoption of protocols using HCQ for routine care to the conduct of randomised controlled trials to an effective system-wide prohibition on its use for COVID-19. In this article, we argue that the concept of 'disease public profile' has become a prominent, if not the sole, determinant in decision-making across various healthcare responses to the pandemic. In the case of COVID-19, the disease's public profile is based on clinical and non-clinical factors that include contagiousness, clinical presentation and media coverage. In particular, we briefly examine the dangers of a heightened public profile in magnifying the inequality of diseases and undermining three key ethical concepts, namely (1) evidence-based practice, (2) sustainable allocation and (3) meaningful consent.

Understanding and Attitudes toward Cancer Clinical Trials among Patients with a Cancer Diagnosis: National Study through Cancer Trials Ireland

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are critical to translation and development of better therapies to improve outcomes. CCTs require adequate patient involvement but accrual rates are low globally. Several known barriers impede participation and knowing how subpopulations differ in understanding of CCTs can foster targeted approaches to aid accrual and advance cancer treatments. We conducted the first nationwide survey of 1089 patients attending 14 Irish cancer centres, assessing understanding of fundamental concepts in CCT methodology and factors that influence participation, to help tailor patient support for accrual to CCTs. Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported never having been offered a CCT and only 5% of those not offered asked to participate. Misunderstanding of clinical equipoise was prevalent. There were differences in understanding of randomisation of treatment by age (p < 0.0001), ethnicity (p = 0.035) and marital status (p = 0.013), and 58% of patients and 61% previous CCT participants thought that their doctor would ensure better treatment in CCTs. Females were slightly more risk averse. Males indicated a greater willingness to participate in novel drug trials (p = 0.001, p = 0.003). The study identified disparities in several demographics; older, widowed, living in provincial small towns and fewer years-educated patients had generally poorer understanding of CCTs, highlighting requirements for targeted support in these groups.

Strategies to Improve Recruitment to a De-escalation Trial: A Mixed-Methods Study of the OPTIMA Prelim Trial in Early Breast Cancer

AIMS

De-escalation trials are challenging and sometimes may fail due to poor recruitment. The OPTIMA Prelim randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN42400492) randomised patients with early stage breast cancer to chemotherapy versus 'test-directed' chemotherapy, with a possible outcome of no chemotherapy, which could confer less treatment relative to routine practice. Despite encountering challenges, OPTIMA Prelim reached its recruitment target ahead of schedule. This study reports the root causes of recruitment challenges and the strategies used to successfully overcome them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-methods recruitment intervention (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) was used to investigate the recruitment difficulties and feedback findings to inform interventions and optimise ongoing recruitment. Quantitative site-level recruitment data, audio-recorded recruitment appointments (n = 46), qualitative interviews (n = 22) with trialists/recruiting staff (oncologists/nurses) and patient-facing documentation were analysed using descriptive, thematic and conversation analyses. Findings were triangulated to inform a 'plan of action' to optimise recruitment.

RESULTS

Despite best intentions, oncologists' routine practices complicated recruitment. Discomfort about deviating from the usual practice of recommending chemotherapy according to tumour clinicopathological features meant that not all eligible patients were approached. Audio-recorded recruitment appointments revealed how routine practices undermined recruitment. A tendency to justify chemotherapy provision before presenting the randomised controlled trial and subtly indicating that chemotherapy would be more/less beneficial undermined equipoise and made it difficult for patients to engage with OPTIMA Prelim. To tackle these challenges, individual and group recruiter feedback focussed on communication issues and vignettes of eligible patients were discussed to address discomforts around approaching patients. 'Tips' documents concerning structuring discussions and conveying equipoise were disseminated across sites, together with revisions to the Patient Information Sheet.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study illuminating the tension between oncologists' routine practices and recruitment to de-escalation trials. Although time and resources are required, these challenges can be addressed through specific feedback and training as the trial is underway.

Provider Recommendations for Phase I Clinical Trials Within a Shared Decision-Making Model in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trial Discussions

PURPOSE

Debate continues over whether explicit recommendations for a clinical trial should be included as an element of shared decision making within oncology. We aimed to determine if and how providers make explicit recommendations in the setting of phase I cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

Twenty-three patient/provider conversations about phase I trials were analyzed to determine how recommendations are made and how the conversations align with a shared decision-making framework. In addition, 19 providers (9 of whose patient encounters were observed) were interviewed about the factors they consider when deciding whether to recommend a phase I trial.

RESULTS

We found that providers are comprehensive in the factors they consider when recommending clinical trials. The two most frequently stated factors were performance status (89%) and patient preferences (84%). Providers made explicit recommendations in 19 conversations (83%), with 12 of those being for a phase I trial (12 [63%] of 19). They made these recommendations in a manner consistent with a shared decision-making model; 18 (95%) of the 19 conversations during which a recommendation was made included all steps, or all but 1 step, of shared decision making, as did 11 of the 12 conversations during which a phase I trial was recommended. In 7 (58%) of these later conversations, providers also emphasized the importance of the patient's opinion.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that providers not hesitate to make explicit recommendations for phase I clinical trials, because they are able to do so in a manner consistent with shared decision making. With further research, these results can be applied to other clinical trial settings.

Hope and despair: a qualitative exploration of the experiences and impact of trial processes in a rehabilitation trial

BACKGROUND

Unanticipated responses by research participants can influence randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple ways, many of which are poorly understood. This study used qualitative interviews as part of an embedded process evaluation to explore the impact participants may have on the study, but also unintended impacts the study may have on them.

AIM

The aim of the study was to explore participants' experiences and the impact of trial involvement in a pilot RCT in order to inform the designing and delivery of a definitive RCT.

METHODS

In-depth interviews with 20 participants (10 in the intervention and 10 in the control group) enrolled in a stroke rehabilitation pilot trial. A modified framework approach was used to analyse transcripts.

RESULTS

Participation in the study was motivated partly by a desperation to receive further rehabilitation after discharge. Responses to allocation to the control group included an increased commitment to self-treatment, and negative psychological consequences were also described. Accounts of participants in both control and intervention groups challenge the presumption that they were neutral, or in equipoise, regarding group allocation prior to consenting to randomisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering and exploring participant and participation effects, particularly in the control group, highlights numerous issues in the interpretation of trial studies, as well as the in ethics of RCTs more generally. While suggestions for a definitive trial design are given, further research is required to investigate the significant implications these findings may have for trial design, monitoring and funding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02429180 . Registered on 29 April/2015.

The perceived severity of a disease and the impact of the vocabulary used to convey information: using Rasch scaling in a simulated oncological scenario

BACKGROUND

Healthcare staff should be aware of the importance that patients may attach to the words that are used to convey information. This is relevant in terms of the patients' understanding. Modeling how people understand the information conveyed in a medical context may help health practitioners to better appreciate the patients' approach.

PURPOSE

1) Analyze the participants' self-reported perception of the type of information provided in an oncological scenario in terms of three dimensions: impairment to their health, risks associated with the disease itself and commitment required to undergo the treatment; and 2) show the benefits of using Rasch scaling for the analysis of the data. Starting from a survey, Rasch scaling produces a unidimensional logit-interval scale relating to the extent to which each item conveys a latent dimension. These were related to structure, in particular concerning communication by means of opposite vs. unipolar language.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The participants rated 82 items of information in a questionnaire regarding their perception of impairment to their health (H) and the risks (R) and commitment relating to the treatment prescribed (T).

RESULTS

The scaling produced an item bank for healthcare staff to consult in order to estimate the importance the recipient would be likely to attach to the vocabulary used and the likely impact of the information in terms of the patient's condition. Furthermore, the use of opposites was generally associated with a clearer impression of whether the information given was generally only very negative or slightly negative, whereas 'neutral' information was often perceived as being very negative.

ACTUAL FINDINGS

Is possible to estimate people's understanding more precisely (in terms of H, R and T) which can help healthcare practitioners to modulate the way they convey information.

LIMITATIONS

The participants in the study were healthy volunteers and the context was simulated.

Opening the "black box" of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study

Purpose

Little is known about how health-care professionals communicate with patients about consenting to genome sequencing. We therefore examined what topics health-care professionals covered and what questions patients asked during consent conversations.

Methods

Twenty-one genome sequencing consent appointments were audio recorded and analyzed. Participants were 35 individuals being invited to participate in the 100,000 Genomes Project (14 participants with rare diseases, 21 relatives), and 10 health-care professionals (“consenters”).

Results

Two-thirds of participants’ questions were substantive (e.g., genetics and inheritance); one-third administrative (e.g., filling in the consent form). Consenters usually (19/21) emphasized participant choice about secondary findings, but less often (13/21) emphasized the uncertainty about associated disease risks. Consenters primarily used passive statements and closed-ended, rather than open-ended, questions to invite participants’ questions and concerns. In two appointments, one parent expressed negative or uncertain views about secondary findings, but after discussion with the other parent opted to receive them.

Conclusion

Health-care professionals need to be prepared to answer patients’ questions about genetics to facilitate genome sequencing consent. Health-care professionals’ education also needs to address how to effectively listen and elicit each patient’s questions and views, and how to discuss uncertainty around the disease risks associated with secondary findings.

Comparing two methods for delivering clinical trial informed consent information to older adults: singular versus stepped approach

BACKGROUND

Adapting the informed consent process to the needs of older adults may enhance engagement and willingness to participate in a clinical trial. A key aspect of the process is being provided with written clinical trial information and consent documents and having an opportunity to discuss the information with the researcher. However, there are no guidelines on the most appropriate method for delivering this information to older adults and it is not known whether the delivery method is a facilitator or barrier towards clinical trial participation.

AIMS

To compare two delivery methods of informed consent on recruitment, refusal to continue and randomisation rates in a general practice-based clinical trial involving older adults.

METHODS

In a matched cohort sub-study as part of the STAtins in Reducing Events in the Elderly clinical trial, 520 participants were allocated into two groups by age, gender and attending general practice location, to receive the trial information and consent form in the mail (Method 1) prior to the first baseline visit or in person (Method 2) at the visit where a comprehensive informed consent process took place.

RESULTS

Compared with Method 1, potential participants assigned to Method 2 were more likely to agree to attend the first baseline screening visit (refusal rate 20% vs 13.5%, respectively, p = 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants recruited into the trial by providing written informed consent at the first baseline screening visit. For each informed consent delivery method, similar proportions of participants refused to take part in the trial by the end of the screening phase. Randomisation rates in the two groups were also similar. Time to conduct the informed consent procedure took significantly longer with Method 2 compared with Method 1 (median time 20 vs 15 min, respectively, p < 0.01). Interest in the research trial topic was the main reason cited (33.4%) for considering trial participation.

CONCLUSION

Later delivery of informed consent documents to potential participants in this trial was associated with a small increase in attendance at the first, in person, screening visit. However, the randomisation rate of participants into the trial was not affected by the method and timing of delivery of informed consent information. Similar randomisation rates occurred whether potential participants were mailed informed consent documents prior to the first in person screening visit or were given the information at the screening visit.

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment

OBJECTIVES

To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties.

RESULTS

One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was "best for them". Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation.

The effects of presenting oncologic information in terms of opposites in a medical context

BACKGROUND

An extensive body of literature has demonstrated that many patients who have been asked to participate in clinical trials do not fully understand the informed consent forms. A parallel independent study has demonstrated that opposites have a special status in human cognitive organization: they are common to all-natural languages and are intuitively and naturally understood and learnt.

PURPOSE

The study investigates whether, and how, the use of opposites impacts on doctor-patient communication: does using the terms "small-large" to describe a nodule (ie, bipolar communication) rather than speaking in terms of centimeters (ie, unipolar communication) affect a patient's understanding of the situation? And is it better to speak of "common-rare" side effects (ie, bipolar communication) instead of the number of people who have suffered from particular side effects (ie, unipolar communication)?

METHODS

Two questionnaires were created and used, one presenting the information in terms of opposites (ie, bipolar communication) and another using unipolar communication.

RESULTS

The participants' perception of their situation (in terms of feeling healthy-ill, being at high-low risk, and their treatment requiring high-low commitment) varied in the two conditions. Moreover, self-reported levels of understanding and satisfaction with how the information was communicated were higher when opposites were used.

LIMITATIONS

Since this is the first study that addresses the merits of using bipolar structures versus unipolar structures in doctor-patient communication, further work is needed to consolidate and expand on the results, involving not only simulated but also real diagnostic contexts.

CONCLUSION

The encouraging results imply that further testing of the use of opposites in informed consent forms and in doctor-patient communication is strongly advisable.

Understanding the influences and impact of patient-clinician communication in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Patient-clinician communication is thought to be central to care outcomes, but when and how communication affects patient outcomes is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

We propose a conceptual model and classification framework upon which the empirical evidence base for the impact of patient-clinician communication can be summarized and further built.

DESIGN

We use the proposed model and framework to summarize findings from two recent systematic reviews, one evaluating the use of shared decision making (SDM) on cancer care outcomes and the other evaluating the role of physician recommendation in cancer screening use.

KEY RESULTS

Using this approach, we identified clusters of studies with positive findings, including those relying on the measurement of SDM from the patients' perspective and affective-cognitive outcomes, particularly in the context of surgical treatment decision making. We also identify important gaps in the literature, including the role of SDM in post-surgical treatment and end-of-life care decisions, and those specifying particular physician communication strategies when recommending cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparent linkages between key conceptual domains and the influence of methodological approaches on observed patient outcomes are needed to advance our understanding of how and when patient-clinician communication influences patient outcomes. The proposed conceptual model and classification framework can be used to facilitate the translation of empirical evidence into practice and to identify critical gaps in knowledge regarding how and when patient-clinician communication impacts care outcomes in the context of cancer and health care more broadly.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)

BACKGROUND

Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding.

METHODS

Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above.

RESULTS

DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

Distributed Cognition in Cancer Treatment Decision Making: An Application of the DECIDE Decision-Making Styles Typology

Distributed cognition occurs when cognitive and affective schemas are shared between two or more people during interpersonal discussion. Although extant research focuses on distributed cognition in decision making between health care providers and patients, studies show that caregivers are also highly influential in the treatment decisions of patients. However, there are little empirical data describing how and when families exert influence. The current article addresses this gap by examining decisional support in the context of cancer randomized clinical trial (RCT) decision making. Data are drawn from in-depth interviews with rural, Appalachian cancer patients ( N = 46). Analysis of transcript data yielded empirical support for four distinct models of health decision making. The implications of these findings for developing interventions to improve the quality of treatment decision making and overall well-being are discussed.

Effect of individualized communication skills training on physicians' discussion of clinical trials in oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial

Background

Discussing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with cancer patients is one of the most challenging communication tasks a physician faces. Only two prior Communication Skills Trainings (CSTs) focused on RCTs in oncology have been reported. Their results demonstrated the need for further improvement. We developed and evaluated an enhanced, individually-tailored CST focused on improving physicians’ communication during discussions of RCTs.

Methods

The CST focused on personal learning goals derived from video pre-assessment that were addressed in a 1.5-day group workshop and one-on-one coaching sessions. Forty physicians were recruited and randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Video-recorded standardized consultations with actor-patients were utilized. As a primary outcome (1), training success was evaluated by blinded raters using a previously developed checklist. Change in checklist items was evaluated between pre- and post-training assessment and compared against control group results. As a secondary outcome (2), the physicians’ feeling of confidence was assessed by a questionnaire.

Results

(1) Significant improvements in the intervention group were observed for the score on all items (p = 0.03), for the subgroup of content-specific items (p = 0.02), and for the global rating of communication competence (p = 0.04). The improvement observed for the subgroup of general communication skill items did not achieve significance (p = 0.20). (2) The feeling of confidence improved in nine out of ten domains.

Conclusion

While the individually-tailored CST program significantly improved the physicians’ discussions of RCTs, specifically related to discussion content, what remains unknown is the influence of such programs in practice on participant recruitment rates.

The study was registered retrospectively in 2010/07/22 under DRKS-ID: DRKS00000492.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3238-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

African-American patients with cancer Talking About Clinical Trials (TACT) with oncologists during consultations: evaluating the efficacy of tailored health messages in a randomised controlled trial-the TACT study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Low rates of accrual of African-American (AA) patients with cancer to therapeutic clinical trials (CTs) represent a serious and modifiable racial disparity in healthcare that impedes the development of promising cancer therapies. Suboptimal physician-patient consultation communication is a barrier to the accrual of patients with cancer of any race, but communication difficulties are compounded with AA patients. Providing tailored health messages (THM) to AA patients and their physician about CTs has the potential to improve communication, lower barriers to accrual and ameliorate health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

(1) Demonstrate the efficacy of THM to increase patient activation as measured by direct observation. (2) Demonstrate the efficacy of THM to improve patient outcomes associated with barriers to AA participation. (3) Explore associations among preconsultation levels of: (A) trust in medical researchers, (B) knowledge and attitudes towards CTs, (C) patient-family member congruence in decision-making, and (D) involvement/information preferences, and group assignment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

First, using established methods, we will develop THM materials. Second, the efficacy of the intervention is determined in a 2 by 2 factorial randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of (1) providing 357 AA patients with cancer with THM with 2 different 'depths' of tailoring and (2) either providing feedback to oncologists about the patients' trial THM or not. The primary analysis compares patient engaged communication in 4 groups preconsultation and postconsultation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University Institutional Review Board. To facilitate use of the THM intervention in diverse settings, we will convene 'user groups' at 3 major US cancer centres. To facilitate dissemination, we will post all materials and the implementation guide in publicly available locations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02356549.

Recommending Randomized Trials for Pediatric Leukemia: Observer and Physician Report of Recommendations

Physicians' presentation of treatment options in a non-coercive manner is critical for informed consent for participation in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This study examined discrepancies between observer and physician report of treatment recommendations for pediatric leukemia RCTs. This study also assessed relationships between recommendations and decisions to participate in RCTs. Participants were 104 parents of children with leukemia and the treating physicians. Measures included observations of informed consent conferences (ICCs), physician report of treatment recommendations, and parent report of trial participation. Observation revealed that physicians recommended RCTs in 38% of ICCs, while physicians reported recommending RCTs in 73% of ICCs. Treatment recommendations were unrelated to decisions to participate in RCTs. Results highlight the importance of enhancing parent-physician communication regarding RCT participation.

Knowledge, attitudes and decision-making preferences of men considering participation in the TROG RAVES Prostate Cancer Trial (TROG 08.03)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The RAVES (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) randomised controlled trial (RCT), compares adjuvant radiotherapy with early salvage radiotherapy in men with high risk histopathological features at prostatectomy. The RAVES Decision Aid study evaluates the utility of a decision aid for men considering participation in the RAVES RCT. We report the RAVES Decision Aid study participants' attitudes and knowledge regarding RCTs, decision-making preferences and decisional-conflict.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Baseline questionnaires assessed knowledge and attitudes towards RCTs and RAVES RCT. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of knowledge were examined. Involvement in decision-making and difficulties with the decision-making process were assessed using validated tools.

RESULTS

127 men (median age=63years) were recruited through urologists (n=91) and radiation oncologists (n=36). Men preferred collaborative (35%) or semi-active (35%) decision-making roles. Most (>75%) felt the RAVES RCT was worthwhile and important with participation being wise. However, nearly half had high decisional-conflict regarding participation. Scores of objective knowledge regarding RCTs and RAVES RCT were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men with high-risk histopathological features at prostatectomy desire active involvement in decision-making regarding further management. Despite positive attitudes towards RCTs and the RAVES RCT, there were gaps in knowledge and high decisional-conflict surrounding participation.

Patients' knowledge and perceived understanding - Associations with consenting to participate in cancer clinical trials

Recruitment to clinical trials is essential. The aims of the study were to investigate associations between patients' informed consent to participate in a cancer clinical trial and knowledge and perceived understanding of the trial. Furthermore, associations between demographic factors and consent to participate and knowledge and perceived understanding of information about the trial were studied.

Methods

The patients were recruited in connection to a visit at the oncology clinic for information about a drug trial. The Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire was mailed to the patients after they had decided about participation in the trial. The associations of demographic factors and "knowledge" and "perceived understanding" were analysed using linear regression models.

Results

A total of 125 patients were included. Higher levels of "knowledge" and "understanding" were found to be associated with consent to participate in a clinical trial, both in the univariate and multivariate analyses (p = 0.001). None of the tested demographic factors were related to consent to participate. No statistically significant associations between any of the demographic factors and knowledge or perceived understanding scores were found.

Conclusion

The results indicate that interventions that increase patients' knowledge and perceived understanding might improve participation rates in clinical trials.

Comprehension of Randomization and Uncertainty in Cancer Clinical Trials Decision Making Among Rural, Appalachian Patients

Comprehension of randomization is a vital, but understudied, component of informed consent to participate in cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This study examines patient comprehension of the randomization process as well as sources of ongoing uncertainty that may inhibit a patient's ability to provide informed consent to participate in RCTs. Cancer patients living in rural Appalachia who were offered an opportunity to participate in a cancer treatment RCT completed in-depth interviews and a brief survey. No systematic differences in randomization comprehension between patients who consented and those who declined participation in a cancer RCT were detected. Comprehension is conceptually distinct from uncertainty, with patients who had both high and low comprehension experiencing randomization-related uncertainty. Uncertainty about randomization was found to have cognitive and affective dimensions. Not all patients enrolling in RCTs have a sufficient understanding of the randomization process to provide informed consent. Healthcare providers need to be aware of the different types of randomization-related uncertainty. Efforts to improve informed consent to participate in RCTs should focus on having patients teach back their understanding of randomization. This practice could yield valuable information about the patient's cognitive and affective understanding of randomization as well as opportunities to correct misperceptions. Education about RCTs should reflect patient expectations of individualized care by explaining how all treatments being compared are appropriate to the specifics of a patient's disease.

Decision-Making Process Related to Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials: A Nonsystematic Review of the Existing Evidence

Due to the lack of other treatment options, patient candidates for participation in phase I clinical trials are considered the most vulnerable, and many ethical concerns have emerged regarding the informed consent process used in the experimental design of such trials. Starting with these considerations, this nonsystematic review is aimed at analyzing the decision-making processes underlying patients' decision about whether to participate (or not) in phase I trials in order to clarify the cognitive and emotional aspects most strongly implicated in this decision. Considering that there is no uniform decision calculus and that many different variables other than the patient-physician relationship (including demographic, clinical, and personal characteristics) may influence patients' preferences for and processing of information, we conclude that patients' informed decision-making can be facilitated by creating a rigorously developed, calibrated, and validated computer tool modeled on each single patient's knowledge, values, and emotional and cognitive decisional skills. Such a tool will also help oncologists to provide tailored medical information that is useful to improve the shared decision-making process, thereby possibly increasing patient participation in clinical trials.

A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often difficult. Clinician related factors have been implicated as important reasons for low rates of recruitment. Clinicians (doctors and other health professionals) can experience discomfort with some underlying principles of RCTs and experience difficulties in conveying them positively to potential trial participants. Recruiter training has been suggested to address identified problems but a synthesis of this research is lacking. The aim of our study was to systematically review the available evidence on training interventions for recruiters to randomised trials.

METHODS

Studies that evaluated training programmes for trial recruiters were included. Those that provided only general communication training not linked to RCT recruitment were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two reviewers independently, with a third author where necessary.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies of 9615 potentially eligible titles and abstracts were included in the review: three randomised controlled studies, two non-randomised controlled studies, nine uncontrolled pre-test/post-test studies, two qualitative studies, and a post-training questionnaire survey. Most studies were of moderate or weak quality. Training programmes were mostly set within cancer trials, and usually consisted of workshops with a mix of health professionals over one or two consecutive days covering generic and trial specific issues. Recruiter training programmes were well received and some increased recruiters' self-confidence in communicating key RCT concepts to patients. There was, however, little evidence that this training increased actual recruitment rates or patient understanding, satisfaction, or levels of informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to develop recruiter training programmes that can lead to improved recruitment and informed consent in randomised trials.

Development and piloting of a decision aid for women considering participation in the Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance 2 breast cancer trial

Background/aims:

This study aimed to (1) develop a decision aid for women considering participation in the Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance 2 (SNAC-2) breast cancer surgical trial and (2) obtain evidence on its acceptability, feasibility, and potential efficacy in routine trial clinical practice via a two-stage pilot.

Methods:

The decision aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Study 1: an initial pilot involved 25 members of the consumer advocacy group, Breast Cancer Network Australia. Study 2: the main pilot involved 20 women eligible to participate in the SNAC-2 trial in New Zealand. In both pilots, a questionnaire assessed: information and involvement preferences, decisional conflict, SNAC-2 trial-related understanding and attitudes, psychological distress, and general decision aid feedback. A follow-up telephone interview elicited more detailed feedback on the decision aid design and content.

Results:

In both pilots, participants indicated good subjective and objective understanding of SNAC-2 trial and reported low decisional conflict and anxiety. The decision aid was found helpful when deciding about trial participation and provided additional, useful information to the standard trial information sheet.

Conclusion:

The development and two-stage piloting process for this decision aid resulted in a resource that women found very acceptable and helpful in assisting decision-making about SNAC-2 trial participation. The process and findings provide a guide for developing other trial decision aids.

Patient advocacy and patient centredness in participant recruitment to randomized-controlled trials: implications for informed consent

CONTEXT

With the routinization of evidence-based medicine and of the randomized-controlled trial (RCT), more patients are becoming 'sites of evidence production' yet, little is known about how they are recruited as participants; there is some evidence that 'substantively valid consent' is difficult to achieve.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views and experiences of nurses recruiting patients to randomized-controlled trials and to examine the extent to which their recruitment practices were patient-centred and patient empowering.

DESIGN

Semi-structured in-depth interviews; audio recording of recruitment appointments; thematic interactional analysis (drawing on discourse and conversation analysis).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Nurses recruiting patients to five publicly funded RCTs and patients consenting to the recording of their recruitment sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The views of recruiting nurses about their recruitment role; the extent to which nurse-patient interactions were patient-centred; the nature of the nurses' interactional strategies and the nature and extent of patient participation in the discussion.

RESULTS

The nurses had a keen sense of themselves as clinicians and patient advocates and their perceptions of the trial and its interventions were inextricably linked to those of the patients. However, many of their recruitment practices made it difficult for patients to play an active and informed part in the discussion about trial participation, raising questions over the quality of consent decisions.

CONCLUSION

Nurses working in patient recruitment to RCTs need to reconcile two different worlds with different demands and ethics. Evidence production, a central task in evidence-based medicine, poses a challenge to patient-centred practice and more research and relevant training are needed.

Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients' treatment preferences

BACKGROUND

Patients' treatment preferences are often cited as barriers to recruitment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated how RCT recruiters reacted to patients' treatment preferences and identified key strategies to improve informed decision-making and trial recruitment.

METHODS

Audio-recordings of 103 RCT recruitment appointments with 96 participants in three UK multicenter pragmatic RCTs were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Recruiters' responses to expressed treatment preferences were assessed in one RCT (ProtecT - Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) in which training on exploring preferences had been given, and compared with two other RCTs where this specific training had not been given.

RESULTS

Recruiters elicited treatment preferences similarly in all RCTs but responses to expressed preferences differed substantially. In the ProtecT RCT, patients' preferences were not accepted at face value but were explored and discussed at length in three key ways: eliciting and acknowledging the preference rationale, balancing treatment views, and emphasizing the need to keep an open mind and consider all treatments. By exploring preferences, recruiters enabled participants to become clearer about whether their views were robust enough to be sustained or were sufficiently weak that participation in the RCT became possible. Conversely, in the other RCTs, treatment preferences were often readily accepted without further discussion or understanding the reasoning behind them, suggesting that patients were not given the opportunity to fully consider all treatments and trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiters can be trained to elicit and address patients' treatment preferences, enabling those who may not have considered trial participation to do so. Without specific guidance, some RCT recruiters are likely to accept initial preferences at face value, missing opportunities to promote more informed decision-making. Training interventions for recruiters that incorporate key strategies to manage treatment preferences, as in the ProtecT study, are required to facilitate recruitment and informed consent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ProtecT RCT: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. The other two trials are registered but have asked to be anonymized.

Improving decision making about clinical trial participation - a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering participation in the IBIS-II breast cancer prevention trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids may improve informed consent in clinical trial recruitment, but have not been evaluated in this context. This study investigated whether decision aids (DAs) can reduce decisional difficulties among women considering participation in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study-II (IBIS-II) trial.

METHODS

The IBIS-II trial investigated breast cancer prevention with anastrazole in two cohorts: women with increased risk (Prevention), and women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom participants were randomised to receive a DA (DA group) or standard trial consent materials (control group). Questionnaires were completed after deciding about participation in IBIS-II (post decision) and 3 months later (follow-up).

RESULTS

Data from 112 Prevention and 34 DCIS participants were analysed post decision (73 DA; 73 control); 95 Prevention and 24 DCIS participants were analysed at follow-up (58 DA; 61 control). There was no effect on the primary outcome of decisional conflict. The DCIS-DA group had higher knowledge post decision, and the Prevention-DA group had lower decisional regret at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to evaluate a DA in the clinical trial setting. The results suggest DAs can potentially increase knowledge and reduce decisional regret about clinical trial participation.

Can consultation skills training change doctors' behaviour to increase involvement of patients in making decisions about standard treatment and clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is required for both standard cancer treatments and experimental cancer treatments in a clinical trial. Effective and sensitive physician-patient communication about informed consent is difficult to achieve. Our aim was to train doctors in clear, collaborative and ethical communication about informed consent and evaluate the impact of training on doctor behaviour, stress and satisfaction.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Participants were 21 oncologists from 10 Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) centres and 41 oncologists from 10 Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centres. Oncologists were randomized to participate in a 1-day workshop or not. Patients were recruited before and after the training. Doctors were asked to submit 1-2 audiotaped consultations before and after training. Doctors completed outcome measures before and after completing the post-training cohort recruitment.

RESULTS

Ninety-five consultation interactions were audiotaped. Doctors strongly endorsed the training. ANZ intervention doctors demonstrated a significant increase in collaborative communication (P = 0.03). There was no effect of training on other doctor behaviours. Trained doctors did not demonstrate reduced stress and burnout. Patient outcomes are presented elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Training can improve some aspects of the process of obtaining informed consent. Methods to increase the impact of training are required and may include longer training and more intensive follow-up.

Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity

Objective. Health professionals must enable patients to make informed decisions about health care choices through unbiased presentation of all options. This study examined whether presenting the decision as “opportunity” rather than “choice” biased individuals’ preferences in the context of trial participation for cancer treatment. Methods. Self-selecting healthy women ( N = 124) were randomly assigned to the following decision frames: opportunity to take part in the trial (opt-in), opportunity to be removed from the trial (opt-out), and choice to have standard treatment or take part in the trial (choice). The computer-based task required women to make a hypothetical choice about a real-world cancer treatment trial. The software presented the framed scenario, recorded initial preference, presented comprehensive and balanced information, traced participants’ use of information during decision making, and recorded final decision. A posttask paper questionnaire assessed perceived risk, attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and satisfaction with decision. Results. Framing influenced women’s immediate preferences. Opportunity frames, whether opt-in or opt-out, introduced a bias as they discouraged women from choosing standard treatment. Using the choice frame avoided this bias. The opt-out opportunity frame also affected women’s perceived social norm; women felt that others endorsed the trial option. The framing bias was not present once participants had had the opportunity to view detailed information on the options within a patient decision aid format. There were no group differences in information acquisition and final decisions. Sixteen percent changed their initial preference after receiving full information. Conclusions. A “choice” frame, where all treatment options are explicit, is less likely to bias preferences. Presentation of full information in parallel, option-by-attribute format is likely to “de-bias” the decision frame. Tailoring of information to initial preferences would be ill-advised as preferences may change following detailed information.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Perceptions of participation in a phase I, II, or III clinical trial among African American patients with cancer: what do refusers say?

BACKGROUND

Less than 5% of all adult patients with cancer enter clinical trials. These rates are lower in racial/ethnic minority populations, negatively affecting the generalizability and validity of trial results. Many studies have identified barriers to minority enrolment, yet few have gathered in-depth insights into minority patients' reasons for trial refusal. We aimed to (1) explore trial refusal reasons in a sample of African American (AA) patients with cancer who declined trial participation and (2) gather patients' perceptions of the potential benefit of an array of decision support tools.

METHODS

Participants were 22 consecutively recruited AA patients with cancer who had declined participation in a therapeutic clinical trial. Within 3 months of the trial refusal decision, participants completed an audio-recorded semistructured interview that asked about demographic and disease information, psychosocial factors, and patients' experience with clinical trials. Two months later, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their trial decision.

RESULTS

Few patients received positive recommendations about joining a trial. Patients gave multiple refusal reasons. Only two participants refused to join a clinical trial as a result of issues of mistrust. Most participants refused as a result of fears of additional burdens and adverse effects. Many patients and family members misunderstood trial information. Family members mostly recommended against trial participation. Most patients felt that question prompt lists or decision aids would assist information seeking and decision making.

CONCLUSION

Low rates of physician recommendations for clinical trial participation of AA patients with cancer warrant further investigation. Interventions to reduce misunderstandings and aid decision making, both within and external to the clinical interaction, need to target both patients and family members.

Evaluation of internal peer-review to train nurses recruiting to a randomized controlled trial--Internal Peer-review for Recruitment Training in Trials (InterPReTiT)

AIM

A discussion and qualitative evaluation of the use of peer-review to train nurses and optimize recruitment practice in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

Sound recruitment processes are critical to the success of randomized controlled trials. Nurses recruiting to trials must obtain consent for an intervention that is administered for reasons other than anticipated benefit to the patient. This requires not only patients' acquiescence but also evidence that they have weighed the relevant information in reaching their decision. How trial information is explained is vital, but communication and training can be inadequate.

DESIGN

A discussion of a new process to train nurses recruiting to a randomized controlled trial.

DATA SOURCES

Literature from 1999-2013 about consenting to trials is included. Over 3 months from 2009-2010, recruiting nurses reviewed recruitment interviews recorded during the pilot phase of a single-site randomized controlled trial and noted content, communication style and interactions. They discussed their findings during peer-review meetings, which were audio-recorded and analysed using qualitative methodology.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Peer-review can enhance nurses' training in trial recruitment procedures by supporting development of the necessary communication skills, facilitating consistency in information provision and sharing best practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-led peer-review can provide a forum to share communication strategies that will elicit and address participant concerns and obtain evidence of participant understanding prior to consent. Comparing practice can improve consistency and accuracy of trial information and facilitate identification of recruitment issues. Internal peer-review was well accepted and promoted team cohesion. Further evaluation is needed.

Parents' agendas in paediatric clinical trial recruitment are different from researchers' and often remain unvoiced: a qualitative study

Ensuring parents make an informed decision about their child's participation in a clinical trial is a challenge for practitioners as a parent's comprehension of a trial may differ from that intended by the practitioners responsible for recruitment. We explored what issues parents consider important when making a decision about participation in a paediatric clinical trial and their comprehension of these issues to inform future recruitment practice. This qualitative interview and observational study examined recruitment in four placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised clinical trials of medicines for children. Audio-recorded trial recruitment discussions between practitioners and parents (N = 41) were matched with semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 41). When making a decision about trial entry parents considered clinical benefit, child safety, practicalities of participation, research for the common good, access to medication and randomisation. Within these prioritised issues parents had specific misunderstandings, which had the potential to influence their decisions. While parents had many questions and concerns about trial participation which influenced their decision-making, they rarely voiced these during discussions about the trials with practitioners. Those involved in the recruitment of children to clinical trials need to be aware of parents' priorities and the sorts of misunderstandings that can arise with parents. Providing trial information that is tailored to what parents consider important in making a decision about a clinical trial may improve recruitment practice and ultimately benefit evidence-based paediatric medicine.

Last resort or roll of the die? Exploring the role of metaphors in cancer clinical trials education among medically underserved populations

Improving communication about cancer clinical trials may help increase patients' understanding of medical research and their interest in participating. It is unfortunate that there is little empirical research to provide guidance on how to adapt clinical trial messages to maximize cultural sensitivity. This study examines (a) how medically underserved women conceptualize clinical trials by examining the language they use to describe them and (b) how this audience interprets metaphorical language used to explain randomization in the context of Phase III cancer clinical trials. The author conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with 41 rural, low-income older women who either had been diagnosed with cancer or were caregivers for a person with cancer. The most commonly used lay metaphors for clinical trials had strong negative connotations and included treatment by trial and error, patients are guinea pigs, and treatment of last resort. Participants also expressed strong, unfavorable responses to conventional metaphors that equate randomization with the roll of a die or use other gambling language. Low-literacy definition approaches were unexpectedly problematic, suggesting the potential effectiveness of culturally grounded metaphors for communicating about clinical trials. Ethical implications of these findings for cancer communication are discussed.

Family meetings for older adults in intermediate care settings: the impact of patient cognitive impairment and other characteristics on shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Clinicians, older adults and caregivers frequently meet to make decisions around treatment and lifestyle during an acute hospital admission. Patient age, psychological status and health locus of control (HLC) influence patient preference for consultation involvement and information but overall, a shared-decision-making (SDM) approach is favoured. However, it is not known whether these characteristics and the presence of cognitive impairment influence SDM competency during family meetings.

OBJECTIVE

To describe meetings between older adults, caregivers and geriatricians in intermediate care and explore patient and meeting characteristics associated with a SDM communication style.

METHODS

Fifty-nine family meetings involving geriatricians, patients in an intermediate care setting following an acute hospital admission and their caregivers were rated using the OPTION system for measuring clinician SDM behaviour. The geriatric depression scale and multidimensional HLC scale were completed by patients. The mini-mental state exam (MMSE) assessed patient's level of cognitive impairment.

RESULTS

Meetings lasted 38 min (SD 13) and scored 41 (SD 17) of 100 on the OPTION scale. Nine (SD 2.2) topics were discussed during each meeting, and most were initiated by the geriatrician. Meeting length was an important determinant of OPTION score, with higher SDM competency displayed in longer meetings. Patient characteristics, including MMSE, HLC and depression did not explain SDM competency.

CONCLUSION

Whilst SDM can be achieved during consultations frail older patients and their caregivers, an increased consultation time is a consequence of this approach.

Research ethics in accessing hospital staff and securing informed consent

Qualitative researchers cannot rely on research ethics to be a static practice. In this article we discuss how observation of guidelines for inquiry and international agreements on the dignity of health care research are not sufficient on their own to ensure that the challenges inherent in the everyday management of a project are regulated. We focus in particular on ethics in accessing participants and the construction of informed consent. During our study, important contrasts emerged between the ideal presented for the standard ethics review process and practical ethics. As a result, we focused on building open communication with the participants through rigorous project management. We analyzed the data and wrote this article collaboratively to represent the empirical reality of a team of researchers aiming to take ethical challenges seriously while collecting data in three National Health Service Trusts in the United Kingdom.

Testing the utility of a cancer clinical trial specific Question Prompt List (QPL-CT) during oncology consultations

OBJECTIVE

A Question Prompt List (QPL) is a proven, simple intervention to aid patients to be active participants in consultations with their physicians by asking questions. We aimed to further develop and test the efficacy of a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT).

METHODS

Breast, Lung and Genitourinary cancer patients who were facing a discussion about a therapeutic clinical trial completed short pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and used the QPL-CT in their discussions with their oncologists.

RESULTS

30 participants were recruited from 6 oncologists. All QPL-CT questions were selected by at least one-third of participants. Participants mostly wanted and asked questions about personal trial benefit. Oncologists provided information about personal benefit to varying degrees, thus patients did not ask some questions. Patients were still left with some unasked and unanswered questions.

CONCLUSION

The QPL-CT has potential as a simple, inexpensive intervention to aid such communication. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of the QPL-CT in improving cancer patient outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These preliminary finding suggest that important areas of clinical trials are overlooked in clinical consultations. The QPL-CT may be an effective method to encourage oncologists to endorse patient question asking about clinical trials and prompt patient questions.

Power of an effective clinical conversation: improving accrual onto clinical trials

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is actively transforming clinical trials to revitalize the clinical trials system and improve patient accrual. For more than 30 years, NCI has provided information and communication resources about cancer clinical trials. The Institute supports a clinical trials Web site (www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials) that receives nearly a half million page views a month. In addition, NCI's Cancer Information Service (800-4-CANCER, chat and e-mail) responds to 1,750 clinical trial inquiries every month. Although these numbers suggest that a high volume of clinical trial information is being exchanged between NCI, the public, and providers, most patients decide whether to participate in clinical trials during the patient-provider interaction.

Measuring the process and quality of informed consent for clinical research: development and testing

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To develop and assess the reliability and validity of an observational instrument, the Process and Quality of Informed Consent (P-QIC).

DESIGN

A pilot study of the psychometrics of a tool designed to measure the quality and process of the informed consent encounter in clinical research. The study used professionally filmed, simulated consent encounters designed to vary in process and quality.

SETTING

A major urban teaching hospital in the northeastern region of the United States.

SAMPLE

63 students enrolled in health-related programs participated in psychometric testing, 16 students participated in test-retest reliability, and 5 investigator-participant dyads were observed for the actual consent encounters.

METHODS

For reliability and validity testing, students watched and rated videotaped simulations of four consent encounters intentionally varied in process and content and rated them with the proposed instrument. Test-retest reliability was established by raters watching the videotaped simulations twice. Inter-rater reliability was demonstrated by two simultaneous but independent raters observing an actual consent encounter.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

The essential elements of information and communication for informed consent.

FINDINGS

The initial testing of the P-QIC demonstrated reliable and valid psychometric properties in both the simulated standardized consent encounters and actual consent encounters in the hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-QIC is an easy-to-use observational tool that provides a quick assessment of the areas of strength and areas that need improvement in a consent encounter. It can be used in the initial trainings of new investigators or consent administrators and in ongoing programs of improvement for informed consent.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The development of a validated observational instrument will allow investigators to assess the consent process more accurately and evaluate strategies designed to improve it.

Conducting randomised controlled trials: finding better ways to explain research to people with anti-social personality disorder who have low literacy levels

BACKGROUND

The involvement of people with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) in clinical trials is necessary to developing effective treatment. Low literacy level, however, may be a barrier to their understanding and therefore their engagement in research.

AIM

Our aim was to find a preferred and most easily understandable way of communicating about research participation with men who have ASPD.

METHODS

Twenty-five men with ASPD who were using mental health services, research experienced and research naïve participated in the study. Literacy levels were assessed. A list of research terms was generated, and statements were developed to ascertain if the terms were understood. The research terms were 'randomisation', 'informed consent', 'confidentiality' and a research question 'why carry out research?' The participants ranked their preferred way of explaining these terms and the method of communicating these.

RESULTS

Those with research experience understood the research terms better. The research naïve and the research experienced men differed in literacy level. Those with below average literacy preferred shorter wordings of research terms than those with average literacy and answered fewer questions correctly. The majority stated a preference for discussion with a researcher before agreeing to take part in research. The least preferred communication methods were those that relied on technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be able to find and use terms that are readily understood and do so. Low literacy levels impair understanding of research terms.

Communication about standard treatment options and clinical trials: can we teach doctors new skills to improve patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND

The International Breast Cancer Study Group conducted a phase III trial in Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) and Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centres on training doctors in clear and ethical information delivery about treatment options and strategies to encourage shared decision making.

METHODS

Medical, surgical, gynaecological and radiation oncologists, and their patients for whom adjuvant breast cancer therapy was indicated, were eligible. Doctors were randomised to participate in a workshop with standardised teaching material and role playing. Patients were recruited in the experimental and control groups before and after the workshop.

RESULTS

In ANZ centres, 21 eligible doctors recruited a total of 304 assessable patients. In SGA centres, 41 doctors recruited 390 patients. The training was well accepted. There was no overall effect on patient decisional conflict (primary endpoint) 2 weeks after the consultation. Overall, patients were satisfied with their treatment decision, their consultation and their doctors' consultation skills. Considerable variation was observed in patient outcomes between SGA and ANZ centres; the effect sizes of the intervention were marginal (<0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision making remains a challenge. A sustained training effect may require more intensive training tailored to the local setting. Cross-cultural differences need attention in conducting trials on communication interventions.

Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners

BACKGROUND

Recruiting children to clinical trials is perceived to be challenging. To identify ways to optimise recruitment and its conduct, we compared how parents and practitioners described their experiences of recruitment to clinical trials.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This qualitative study ran alongside four children's clinical trials in 11 UK research sites. It compared analyses of semi-structured interviews with analyses of audio-recordings of practitioner-family dialogue during trial recruitment discussions. Parents from 59 families were interviewed; 41 had participated in audio-recorded recruitment discussions. 31 practitioners were interviewed. Parents said little in the recruitment discussions contributing a median 16% of the total dialogue and asking a median of one question. Despite this, parents reported a positive experience of the trial approach describing a sense of comfort and safety. Even if they declined or if the discussion took place at a difficult time, parents understood the need to approach them and spoke of the value of research. Some parents viewed participation as an 'exciting' opportunity. By contrast, practitioners often worried that approaching families about research burdened families. Some practitioners implied that recruiting to clinical trials was something which they found aversive. Many were also concerned about the amount of information they had to provide and believed this overwhelmed families. Whilst some practitioners thought the trial information leaflets were of little use to families, parents reported that they used and valued the leaflets. However, both parties agreed that the leaflets were too long and wanted them to be more reader-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents were more positive about being approached to enter their child into a clinical trial than practitioners anticipated. The concerns of some practitioners, that parents would be overburdened, were unfounded. Educating practitioners about how families perceive clinical trials and providing them with 'moral' support in approaching families may benefit paediatric research and, ultimately, patients.