Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT)

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid to Support Patients' Participatory Decision-Making for Tumor-Specific and Palliative Therapy for Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study

Background

To support advanced cancer patients and their oncologists in therapeutic decisions, we aim to develop a decision aid (DA) in a multiphased, bicentric study. The DA aims to help patients to better understand risks and benefits of the available treatment options including the options of standard palliative care or cancer-specific treatment (ie, off-label drug use within an individual treatment plan).

Objective

This study protocol outlines the development and testing of the DA in a pre-post study targeting a heterogeneous population of advanced cancer patients.

Methods

In the first step, we will assess patients’ information and decisional needs as well as the views of the health care providers regarding the content and implementation of the DA. Through a scoping review, we aim to analyze specific characteristics of the decision-making process and to specify the treatment options, outcomes, and probabilities. An interdisciplinary research group of experts will develop and review the DA. In the second step, testing of the DA (design and field testing) with patients and oncologists will be conducted. As a last step, we will run a pre-post design study with 70 doctor-patient encounters to assess improvements on the primary study outcome: patients’ level of decisional conflict. In addition, the user acceptance of all involved parties will be tested.

Results

Interviews with cancer patients, oncologists, and health care providers (ie, nurses, nutritionists) as well as a literature review from phase I have been completed. The field testing is scheduled for April 2021 to August 2021, with the final revision scheduled for September 2021. The pre-post study of the DA and acceptance testing are scheduled to start in October 2021 and shall be finished in September 2022.

Conclusions

A unique feature of this study is the development of a DA for patients with different types of advanced cancer, which covers a wide range of topics relevant for patients near the end of life such as forgoing cancer-specific therapy and switching to best supportive care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04606238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04606238.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/24954

Ethics framework for treatment use of investigational drugs

BACKGROUND

Expanded access is the use of investigational drugs (IDs) outside of clinical trials. Generally it is performed in patients with serious and life-threatening diseases who cannot be treated satisfactorily with authorized drugs. Legal regulations of expanded access to IDs have been introduced among others in the USA, the European Union (EU), Canada and Australia. In addition, in the USA an alternative to expanded access is treatment under the Right-to-Try law. However, the treatment use of IDs is inherently associated with a number of ethically relevant problems.

MAIN TEXT

The objective of this article is to present a coherent framework made up of eight requirements which have to be met for any treatment use of an ID to be ethical. These include a justified need for the use of an ID, no threat to clinical development of the ID, adequate scientific evidence to support the treatment, patient's benefit as the primary goal of the use of an ID, informed decision of a patient, fair access of patients to IDs, independent review, as well as the dissemination of treatment results.

CONCLUSIONS

While this framework is essentially consistent with the legal regulations of expanded access of the USA, the EU, Canada and Australia, it is substantially wider in scope because it addresses some important issues that are not covered by the regulations. Overall, the framework that we developed minimizes the risks and threats, and maximizes potential benefits to each of the four key stakeholders involved in the treatment use of IDs including patients, doctors, drug manufacturers, and society at large.