Decision-making process in patients before entering phase III cancer clinical trials: a pilot study

"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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients.

RESULTS

In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.

Preoperative risk information and patient involvement in surgical treatment for rectal and sigmoid cancer

AIM

Surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer is a model setting for investigating preoperative information provision and shared decision making (SDM), as the decision consists of a trade-off between the pros and cons of different treatment options. The aim of this study was to explore surgeons' opinion on the preoperative information that should be given to rectal and sigmoid cancer patients and to evaluate what is actually communicated. In addition, we assessed surgeons' attitudes towards SDM and compared these with patient involvement.

METHOD

A questionnaire was sent to Dutch surgeons with an interest in gastroenterology. Preoperative consultations were recorded. A checklist was used to code the information that surgeons communicated to the patients. The OPTION-scale was used to measure patient involvement.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were sent to 240 surgeons, and 103 (43%) responded. They stated that information on anastomotic leakage and its consequences, the benefits and risks of a defunctioning stoma and the impact of a stoma on quality of life were necessary preoperative information. In practice, patients were inconsistently informed of these items. Most participants agreed to using SDM in their consultations. However, in practice, most patients were offered only one treatment option and little SDM was seen. The mean OPTION-score was low (7/100).

CONCLUSION

Insufficient information is given to patients with rectal and sigmoid cancer to guide them on their preferred surgical option. Information should be given on all treatment options, together with their complications and outcome, before any decision is made.

Hegemony, hermeneutics, and the heuristic of hope

Hope has become a commodity, one that society expects those who suffer to invest in and one that healthcare providers are expected to promote as an outcome. In nursing research, a single hegemonic epistemology/ontology has been implemented through an exclusive hermeneutic (interpretation of data) and has resulted in hope being designated as an external objective heuristic for those who suffer. Evidence is articulated in this article for adopting a broader method of analysis and interpretation (genealogy) that can facilitate fuller apprehension of hope in the human experience of suffering and despair.

A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the barriers, modifiers, and benefits involved in participating in randomized controlled trials of cancer therapies as perceived by health care providers and patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify published and unpublished studies in any language using electronic databases searched from 1996 to 2004, contact with experts, and reference lists. All study designs were acceptable provided relevant data were reported. Two reviewers were involved in the selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment processes. Studies were combined in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and represented the perspective of the patient or the health care provider or both. Although a range of barriers to trial participation were identified, a number of threats to the internal and external validity of the included studies limited interpretation of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

The limitations within the evidence base do not permit a clear interpretation of the barriers, moderators, and benefits involved in participation in cancer trials. We recommend that trialists prospectively identify the issues relevant to a particular trial using the current research as a starting point. We report checklists to guide this process.

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

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Do cancer patients fully understand clinical trial participation? A pilot study to assess informed consent and patient expectations

BACKGROUND

Accepted practices of informed consent often result in suboptimal patient understanding of research studies.

METHODS

This pilot study aimed to assess trial-specific tailored materials, compared to a widely used generic booklet about clinical trials, randomly assigned to 118 candidates for cancer clinical trials. Study outcomes were: satisfaction with decision-making; satisfaction with materials; and subjective understanding of the clinical trial.

RESULTS

There were no major differences between groups. Participants rated tailored materials higher as a useful reference.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial-specific materials hold utility for reference during clinical trials. Studies of informed consent are feasible, although important factors limit research.

"It's no skin off my nose": why people take part in qualitative research

In this article, the authors analyze participants' accounts of why they took part in a repeat-interview study exploring newly diagnosed patients' perceptions of diabetes service provision in Lothian, Scotland. The study involved three semistructured in-depth interviews with each patient (N = 40), which spanned a year. The authors provide a thematic discursive analysis of responses to the question, Can I ask you what made you decide to part in the study and why you've stayed involved over the past year? The main themes are (a) recruitment within health contexts ("the nurse said it would help"), (b) altruism ("if it can help somebody"), (c) qualitative research being seen as inherently innocuous ("nothing to lose"), and (d) therapeutic aspects of interviewing ("getting it off my chest"). The analysis contributes both to the qualitative literature about generic research participation and to a germinal literature exploring qualitative health research participation.

Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret

OBJECTIVE

To understand the psychosocial outcomes related to decision-making processes of individuals eligible for participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

Individuals eligible to participate in selected clinical trials were contacted to complete two surveys; one shortly after participants were identified, and the second 6 weeks after the first survey was completed (N=50). Measures included subjective informed consent; satisfaction with decision-making; decisional regret; and timing of consent (early versus late signers). ANOVA and correlation coefficients were used to test the relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Early signers reported themselves to be less informed about the details of their particular clinical trials than later signers (M=81.9 versus 91.2; F=5.5; p=.02). There was a non-significant trend for early signers to be less satisfied with their decisions than late signers. Satisfaction with decision-making and subjective informed consent were both strongly associated with later decisional regret (r=-.32 and -.30, respectively). However, there was no relationship between timing of consent and decisional regret.

CONCLUSION

Participants who enroll in clinical trials quickly may not believe they fully understand the implications of trial participation. In general, participants who do not believe they fully understand the implications of trial participation, or who are less satisfied with their decision to enroll in the trial may ultimately feel regret about their decision to participate.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

More effort is needed to ensure that clinical trial participants fully understand the risks and benefits of participation and are satisfied with their decision to enroll in a trial prior to signing consent forms.

Cancer patients' views and experiences of participation in care and decision making

The purpose of this study was to explore the views and experiences of adult cancer patients about patient participation in care and decision making and the preconditions for this participation. The data were collected by means of focused interviews; in addition the patients completed depression and problem-solving instruments. The sample comprised 34 cancer patients from the haematological and oncological wards of one university hospital in Finland. The results revealed considerable variation in the patients' views on their participation in care and decision making. Some of the patients understood participation either in terms of contributing to the decision making or in terms of expressing their views on treatment options. Some considered that their participation in care was impossible. Patient participation in care and decision making was promoted by good health, access to information, assertiveness, good interactive relationships with nurses and physicians, and encouragement by nurses and physicians to participate. Factors restricting such patient participation were poor health, ignorance, anxiety, age, time pressures of staff, lack of time, high staff turnover and poor interactive relationships. With regard to participation in medical decision making, the patients were divided into three groups: (1) active participants (n = 7), (2) patients giving active consent (n = 9), and (3) patients giving passive consent to medical decisions (n = 18).

The content and amount of information given by medical oncologists when telling patients with advanced cancer what their treatment options are. palliative chemotherapy and watchful-waiting

This study aimed to determine the content and the amount of information given by medical oncologists when proposing palliative chemotherapy and whether this information given is influenced by patient or physician background characteristics. In a prospective study, 95 patients with incurable cancer were interviewed before they consulted their medical oncologist. Their first consultation was audiotaped, and their eventual decision scored. A coding scheme comprised six categories of information given during the consultation. Medical oncologists mentioned or explained the disease course (53%), symptoms (35%) and prognosis (39%). Most patients were told about the absence of cure (84%). Watchful-waiting was mentioned to only half of the patients, either in one sentence (23%) or explained more extensively (27%). Multilevel analysis revealed that the patients' age, patient's marital status, and consulting in an academic hospital explained 38% of the amount of information given. Most of the physicians' attention is spent on the 'active' treatment option. Older patients, married patients and patients in academic hospitals receive more information.

Why patients don't take part in cancer clinical trials: an overview of the literature

Clinical trials have been recognized extensively within the literature as a crucial component in the research, development and evaluation of treatment strategies within health care services. However, it has also been acknowledged that clinicians and researchers have historically experienced problems in terms of attaining adequate recruitment to clinical trials. The purpose of this review is to explore some of these questions and, more importantly, provide possible explanations for non-participation in clinical trials, with specific reference to the field of cancer research. In addition, approaches that have been used by researchers in order to explore the issue of non-participation, and suggestions in terms of the ways that further research into this key area may be undertaken, are also be considered.

Testing a theory of decision-making derived from King's systems framework in women eligible for a cancer clinical trial

The purpose of this study was to test an explanatory theory of decision-making in women eligible for a cancer clinical trial. The theory derived from King's framework proposed that the concepts of uncertainty, role functioning, and social support relate to emotional health (hope and mood state), which in turn relates to the treatment decision. A correlational study design was used to test the theory in a sample of 40 women. Findings provided empirical evidence of the adequacy of King's framework and supported, in part, theorized relationships among the critical factors. However, these factors did not illuminate the treatment decision.

Ethical issues of informed consent: mothers' experiences enrolling their children in bone marrow transplantation research

Twelve mothers whose children had undergone bone marrow transplantation were interviewed about their experiences giving informed consent. They were asked to describe how they were introduced to bone marrow transplantation as a course of action to treat their gravely ill children, what their understanding of the protocol was, and the process by which they gave their consent. Their stories reveal complex ethical issues that may surface in the course of informed consent for research involving children. Findings suggest that mothers perceive life-and-death circumstances when a child is offered bone marrow transplantation, altering the voluntary nature of the research enterprise. The emotional trauma of the diagnosis decreases a mother's ability to absorb and understand vital information, and the emergent nature of the children's condition and the urgency to begin treatment further compromise informed consent by constricting the time and resources mothers may need to make a decision. Once a protocol is underway, mothers often experience regrets and self-recriminations about their decision to consent. Recommendations are offered that expand upon the current cognitive/rational approach to informed consent and take into account emotional experiences and the importance of building relationships to ensure informed consent over the life of a clinical trial.