Primary care physicians' attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trials

Ethical considerations for referral partnerships in clinical research

Recruitment challenges in clinical research are widespread, particularly for traditionally under-represented groups. Referral relationships-in which research partners and clinical partners agree to collaborate on selected research studies or programmes, with the expectation that the clinical partners refer appropriate patients as potential participants-may help alleviate these challenges. Referral relationships allow research partners access to expanded and more diverse pools of participants by increasing the engagement of medical providers, leveraging providers' connections with patients and providing structural support for study participation. Clinical partners can also benefit from the resources offered by research involvement, and patients may benefit from improved access to studies. Yet despite their potential, referral relationships can raise ethical concerns. Here, we discuss ethical considerations for referral relationships in clinical research to address these concerns. When establishing relationships, fair participant selection should guide the sites and studies involved. When defining the terms of a relationship, partners should build trust and respect, collaborating so that health centres or hospitals and communities benefit from their research involvement with the mitigation of associated burdens. When implemented, referral relationships should continue to honour fair participant selection, reduce misunderstanding or miscommunication about research and protect patients' privacy and confidentiality. Overall, when conducted ethically, referral relationships can help address study recruitment challenges and promote fair access to research opportunities.

Is there a relationship between attitudes of general practitioners/family doctors and attitudes of their patients regarding industry-sponsored clinical investigations? A cross-sectional survey in a convenience sample of doctors and patients across nine European countries

AIM

To assess the relationship between the attitudes of general practitioners/family medicine doctors (GP/FD) and of their patients toward industry-sponsored clinical research.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey included volunteer GPs/FDs who then enrolled and interviewed their patients. Data were analyzed in hierarchical models (patients nested in GPs/FDs, nested in countries/regions).

RESULTS

A total of 201 GPs/FDs from nine European countries responded to the invitation and enrolled 995 of their patients. We observed mild associations between some of the GPs/FDs' attitudes (general opinion on sponsored clinical studies, appreciation of the general values of such studies, views about the importance of participant protection/privacy) and some of the patients' attitudes (appreciation of the general values and of risks associated with sponsored clinical studies, importance assigned to potential personal benefits from participation). We observed no association between GPs/FDs' attitudes and patients' willingness to participate in such studies. However, willingness to participate increased with higher patients' appreciation of the general values of sponsored studies, decreased with higher patients' appreciation of associated risks, and showed a quadratic trend across the levels of importance assigned by patients to potential personal benefits (willingness was higher when the assigned importance was very low or very high). More importance to GP/FD's advice in this respect was assigned by patients who assigned more importance to potential personal benefits, who were better educated, and who resided in rural/suburban dwellings.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present convenience sample, lay-person attitudes about and willingness to participate in industry-sponsored clinical studies were associated with the attitudes of their GPs/FDs.

Evaluation of clinicians' knowledge and practice regarding pharmacotherapy of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A multi-center study in Yemen

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is a hematological malignancy that requires effective pharmacotherapy for optimal management. There is limited information regarding Yemeni clinicians' knowledge and practice of NHL pharmacotherapy. This study aims to assess the knowledge and practice of physicians and nurses in Yemen regarding pharmacotherapy of NHL. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Sana'a, Yemen, from January 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. Two self-administrated and validated questionnaires were distributed to 99 physicians and 164 nurses involved in pharmacotherapy for NHL in different oncology centers and units across Yemen. Convenience samples were used to recruit participants. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with nurses' and physicians' knowledge and practice. The correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between knowledge and practice. A total of 77 physicians and 105 nurses completed the questionnaires. The results showed that 54.3% of nurses and 66.2% of physicians had poor knowledge of NHL pharmacotherapy. In terms of practice, 83.8% of nurses and 75.3% of physicians exhibited poor practice regarding NHL pharmacotherapy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified that nurses who received sufficient information about chemotherapy displayed a significant association with good knowledge, while nurses working in the chemotherapy administration department were significant predictors of good practice. Among physicians, those working in the National Oncology Center (NOC) in Sana'a demonstrated good practice. Correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between nurses' knowledge and their practice. The study's results confirm deficiencies in knowledge and practice of pharmacotherapy for NHL among physicians and nurses in Yemen. Efforts should be made to enhance their understanding of treatment guidelines and to improve patient care. Improvement in educational programs and training opportunities may contribute to improving patient outcomes in the management of NHL.

Preparing Patients to Communicate with Their Doctors About Clinical Trials as a Treatment Option: Impact of a Novel Video Intervention for Patients with a Blood Cancer and Their Caregivers

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are imperative for advancing cancer treatment and providing treatment options for patients; however, many barriers exist to offering and enrolling interested and eligible patients. It is crucial to equip patients and caregivers with communication skills that help them initiate and navigate conversations about the option of receiving treatment within a CCT. The aim was to assess the acceptability and impact of a novel video training for patients and caregivers that models strategies for patient-provider communication using the PACES method of healthcare communication and provides information about CCTs. The three-module training was implemented among blood cancer patients and caregivers. Using a single-arm pre-post study design, self-report surveys assessed changes in knowledge, confidence in using the PACES method, and perceived importance of, confidence in, and behavioral intention related to talking with doctors about CCTs. The Patient Report of Communication Behavior (PRCB) scale was administered. Among 192 participants, post-intervention knowledge gains were evident (p < 0.001). Confidence, importance, and likelihood to communicate about CCTs and confidence about using PACES also increased (p < 0.001); females who had never previously spoken to a provider about CCTs demonstrated greater impact (p = 0.045) than other genders. PRCB mean scores increased among patients 65+ who had never spoken to a provider about CCTs, with greater change than patients <65 (p = 0.001). This educational intervention for patients and caregivers increased knowledge about CCTs, skills in communicating with doctors about care and CCTs, and readiness to initiate conversations about CCTs as a potential treatment option.

Rural research capacity: a co-created model for research success

PURPOSE

The United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH) have long challenged academia to improve clinical trial enrollment, especially in underrepresented populations; inclusive of geography, age, disability status, racial and ethnic minorities. It has been shown that rural and urban residents enrolled in clinical trials have similar outcomes, yet, rural healthcare systems struggle to provide opportunities to rural residents to participate in clinical trials when infrastructure is limited or unsupportive of research programs and/or research staffing levels are insufficient. To fully address the barriers to clinical trial access in rural areas, it is not adequate to simply open more trials. Community receptivity of research as well as organizational and community capacity must be considered. This project was determined by the Oregon Health and Science University's Institutional Review Board to be generalizable research across the chosen counties and was approved to operate under a waiver of written consent. Participants received a cash incentive in appreciation for their time and verbally agreed to participate after reviewing a project information sheet.

METHODS

The research team co-created a community-responsive approach to the receipt, review, and acceptance of clinical trials in a rural community setting. An adapted 5 step Implementation Mapping approach was used to develop a systematic strategy intended to increase the success, and therefore, the number of clinical trials offered in a rural community.

RESULTS

The research team and participating rural community members pilot-tested the implementation of a co-designed research review strategy, inclusive of a Regional Cultural Landscape and three co-created project submission and feasibility review forms, with a cancer early detection clinical trial. The proposed clinical trial required engagement from primary care and oncology. Utilizing the research review strategy demonstrated strong researcher-community stakeholder communication and negotiation, which resulted in early identification and resolution of potential barriers, hiring a local clinical research coordinator, and timely trial opening.

CONCLUSION

To the knowledge of the research team, the work described is the first to use a community-engaged approach for creating a clinical trial implementation strategy directly supportive of rural-sitting community stakeholders in receiving, reviewing, and approving cancer-related clinical trials in their community. Participating community members and leaders had the chance to negotiate research protocol changes or considerations directly with researchers interested in conducting a cancer clinical trial in their rural setting.

Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion in Clinical Trials

Women and people from most racial and ethnic groups in the United States have historically been under-represented in clinical trials of investigational medical products. Inadequate representation of these groups may lead to an incomplete understanding of the safety and efficacy of new drugs, devices, biologics, and vaccines, and limit the generalizability of trial findings. As a result, new medical products may not be beneficial to all people who need them, and existing inequities in outcomes among various population groups may remain unchanged or worsen, or new disparities may arise. Although much work has focused on study-level strategies, research organizations must make systemic changes to how clinical trials are envisioned and implemented to achieve sustainable support for diversity and inclusion in clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted interviews with leaders at institutions that conduct clinical trials to explore perspectives on organizational-level practices that promote diversity and inclusion in clinical trials. Leaders described motivations, such as an ethical and moral imperative; organizational practices, such as staff investment and resource allocation; perceived return on investments, such as better science; and deterrents, such as cost and time. The CTTI also convened an expert meeting to discuss the interview findings and provide guidance. We present the interview findings and expert guidance in a framework that describes four key areas-commitment, partnerships, accountability, and resources-on sustaining organizational-level approaches for improving diversity and inclusion in clinical trials, with the ultimate goal of advancing health equity. Institutions who conduct and support clinical trials should implement organizational-level approaches to improve equitable access and diverse patient participation in clinical trials.

Clinical trial recruitment in primary care: exploratory factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure barriers and facilitators to primary care providers' involvement

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of sufficient participants for clinical trials remains challenging. Primary care is an important avenue for patient recruitment but is underutilized. We developed and pilot tested a questionnaire to measure relevant barriers and facilitators to primary care providers' involvement in recruiting patients for clinical trials.

METHODS

Prior research informed the development of the questionnaire. The initial instrument was revised using feedback obtained from cognitive interviews. We invited all primary care providers practicing within the University of Utah Health system to complete the revised questionnaire. We used a mixed-mode design to collect paper responses via in-person recruitment and email contacts to collect responses online. Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, and multivariable regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven primary care providers participated in the survey. Exploratory factor analysis suggested retaining five factors, representing the importance of clinical trial recruitment in providers' professional identity, clinic-level interventions to facilitate referral, patient-related barriers, concerns about patient health management, and knowledge gaps. The five factors exhibited good or high internal consistency reliability. Professional identity and clinic-level intervention factors were significant predictors of providers' intention to participate in clinical trial recruitment activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this exploratory analysis provide preliminary evidence of the internal structure, internal consistency reliability, and predictive validity of the questionnaire to measure factors relevant to primary care providers' involvement in clinical trial recruitment.

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain "Prevention Research Champions" lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage "shared-decision making."

The Impact of an Online Training Program About Cancer Clinical Trials on Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Behavior

Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is critical to improving cancer treatments and quality of care. However, rates of patient participation remain low. Research has shown that a trusted physician recommendation is an important influence on patients' decisions to enroll in a CCT. Improving primary care providers' (PCPs') knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about CCTs is a promising potential path for improving CCT participation. The aim of this pilot study was to test the effect of an online educational course for PCPs about clinical trials on primary care providers' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behavior. Forty-one PCPs in the New York City area participated in a 1-h online training session on cancer clinical trials. These PCPs had self-selected to complete the training in a previous survey. The objectives of the training module were to (1) educate the PCPs about clinical trials, with a focus on overcoming misconceptions; and (2) discuss roles of PCPs in partnering with oncologists to help patients gain access to clinical trials. The training module included didactics, audio excerpts, and case descriptions. Participants completed a pre-test immediately before taking the course, a post-test immediately after taking the course, and a 3-month post-course survey. All three assessments included a general T/F knowledge test, a 7-item attitude/belief scale, and a knowledge test focused specifically on local resources and access for clinical trials. Forty-one PCPs completed the module and the pre-post course surveys. Eighty percent (33/41) also completed the 3-month post-course survey. General knowledge and local knowledge increased significantly (p < .05) from pre- to post-course. At 3 months post-training, both general and local knowledge scores remained significantly increased from baseline. For those who completed the 3-month post-course survey, attitudes and beliefs increased significantly from pre- to post-course, but this change was not sustained at 3 months post-training. At 3 months post-training, 52% of the PCPs who had an interaction with a recently diagnosed cancer patient reported speaking with patients about CCTs as a result of the training. A brief online course showed significant and sustained improvement in PCPs' general and local knowledge about cancer clinical trials, which translated into self-reported behavior change. Future dissemination of the course and further research into its impact are important next steps.

Knowledge and Attitude of Medical Residents Towards Cancer Clinical Trials in Jordan

Background

Clinical trials are an important tool to test the efficacy of new treatment modalities for cancer patients. Physicians, including medical residents, should play a major role in carrying out clinical trials to generate a strong body of evidence to determine the best available treatment for their patients. Carrying out clinical trials demands adequate understanding of the research phases and requirements including ethical standards as well as presenting positive attitudes toward the clinical research. Hence, evaluating the knowledge and attitudes of medical residents toward running clinical trials is essential to assess their preparedness and willingness to participate in future studies.

Methods

This study was a questionnaire-based observational study. It involved medical residents from various specialties who served cancer patients admitted at King Abdullah University Hospital during the period from June 1 to August 15, 2017.

Results

A total number of 83 respondents completed the questionnaire. Of them, 56.7% and 53.0% of the respondents reported either current or previous participation in clinical trials research, respectively. Only 10 residents (12.0%) had previous participation in clinical research where a new investigational cancer treatment was tested. While, 91.6% of respondents believed that physicians should be involved in running clinical cancer research, only 25.3% had previous experience in writing a cancer clinical trial protocol and 28.9% wrote a scientific manuscript on cancer clinical trials for publication. Moreover, 67.5% of residents knew when informed consent should be obtained and 62.7% were aware of the clinical equipoise concept in clinical trials.

Conclusion

Much remains to be done to improve knowledge and attitudes of medical residents toward cancer clinical trials and the main ethical principles that should be followed to assure having an ideal research environment, which will pave the way for the generation of high quality clinical cancer research and reliable evidence-based clinical practice for cancer management.

Unpacking Trial Offers and Low Accrual Rates: A Qualitative Analysis of Clinic Visits With Physicians and Patients Potentially Eligible for a Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Cancer clinical trial accrual rates are low, and information about contributing factors is needed. We examined video-recorded clinical interactions to identify circumstances under which patients potentially eligible for a trial at a major cancer center were offered a trial.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative directed content analysis of 62 recorded interactions with physicians (n = 13) and patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (n = 43). Patients were screened and potentially eligible for a trial. We observed and coded the interactions in 3 steps: (1) classification of all interactions as explicit offer, offer pending, trial discussed/not offered, or trial not discussed; (2) in interactions with no explicit offer, classification of whether the cancer had progressed; (3) in interactions classified as progression but no trial offered, identification of factors discussed that may explain the lack of an offer.

RESULTS

Of the 62 interactions, 29% were classified as explicit offer, 12% as offer pending, 18% as trial discussed/not offered, and 39% as trial not discussed. Of those with no offer, 57% included information that the cancer had not progressed. In 68% of the remaining interactions with patients whose cancer had progressed but did not receive an offer, reasons for the lack of offer were identified, but in 32%, no explanation was provided.

CONCLUSION

Even in optimal circumstances, few patients were offered a trial, often because their cancer had not progressed. Findings support professional recommendations to broaden trial inclusion criteria. Findings suggest accrual rates should reflect the proportion of eligible patients who enroll.

Analysis of the perceptions and attitudes to participate in radical and palliative clinical trials among Chinese lymphoma and head/neck cancer patients

Objective: The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate the perceptions and attitudes to participate in radical and palliative clinical trials among Chinese lymphoma and head/neck cancer patients.

Patients and Methods: A self-developed questionnaire was administered to hospitalized patients in the Department of Medical Oncology in Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center between 20 September 2014 and 20 September 2015. This study included lymphoma patients who were enrolled into a radical treatment clinical trial, and head/neck cancer patients participating in a palliative clinical trial.

Results: There were 136 lymphoma patients and 87 head/neck cancer patients who completed and returned the questionnaire. The questionnaire return rate was 100%. More than 90% of the patients in both groups showed trust and acceptance for medical care personnel, and more than 50% of the patients in both groups were in hope of trying new medication, receiving free medication, and receiving new treatment at an earlier rate. As compared with those in the radical trials, patients in the palliative clinical trials were more likely to hope to try new medication (P<0.001) and receive a new treatment at an earlier date (P=0.025), but less likely to hope to receive free medication (P=0.047).

Conclusions: This study reveals several shared perceptions and needs of patients in both the radical (lymphoma) and palliative (head/neck cancer) settings and explores the differences in patients' attitudes between radical clinical trials and palliative clinical trials. These findings may provide a basis for improving recruitment of patients for different types of clinical trials and ensuring that patients have a better understanding of clinical trials.