Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme

Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials With Community Engagement: Enhancing Lupus Clinical Trial Recruitment Through Provider and Community Health Worker Engagement

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the effectiveness of the Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY) program on enhancing referrals of underrepresented patients to lupus clinical trials. TIMELY leverages two existing American College of Rheumatology online educational initiatives: Materials to Increase Minority Involvement in Clinical Trials (MIMICT), a continuing medical education activity for health care providers, and the community health worker (CHW) Lupus Clinical Trials Training (LuCTT). TIMELY introduced a unique roundtable meeting format to build on the existing online educational programs and facilitate discussions between local clinical trial sites and provider and CHW participants.

METHODS

This study used an online pretest and posttest design to assess changes in theory-based behavioral predictors of lupus clinical trial referrals and engagement (ie, knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and intentions) among providers and CHWs. Participants completed MIMICT or LuCTT and then were eligible to participate in roundtable meetings. Paired t-tests were used to assess changes in composite scores before and after the intervention for each of the outcomes.

RESULTS

The final sample included 40 providers and 18 CHWs. Knowledge scores increased significantly for both providers (P < 0.01) and CHWs (P < 0.001) on completion of MIMICT and LuCTT, respectively. After participating in the TIMELY roundtable, providers' composite scores for self-efficacy and intentions significantly increased (P < 0.001). Provider self-efficacy gains were sustained at three months' follow-up (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

These promising findings highlight the potential and opportunities for the TIMELY program to improve behavioral predictors of trial referrals, including CHW knowledge and providers' knowledge, self-efficacy, and intentions to refer underrepresented patients to lupus clinical trials.

Recruiting women with ductal carcinoma in situ to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from the LORIS study

BACKGROUND

The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented.

METHODS

Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews.

RESULTS

Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.

"Lynch Syndrome"-From Healer to a Vulnerable Patient: A Transformative Odyssey

Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant genetic disorder, increases the risk of certain cancers, notably colorectal cancer. Early genetic testing and surveillance can significantly reduce associated morbidity and mortality. However, young patients face significant challenges navigating the healthcare system, with the psychological impact often neglected. Coping with the hereditary condition and elevated cancer risk can lead to distress, anxiety, and depression. Healthcare providers tend to focus on physical aspects, disregarding psychological well-being, leading to reduced treatment compliance and satisfaction. This case highlights the need for multidisciplinary teams and mental health support, emphasizing patient-centered care and support systems within the healthcare system.

Informed Consent: Research Staff's Perspectives and Practical Recommendations to Improve Research Staff-Participant Communication

Informed consent (IC) is the process of communication between research staff and potential research participants. However, ensuring that participants clearly understand what research participation entails, raises significant challenges. The aim of this study is to provide insight into some communication barriers that research staff are confronted with and make practical recommendations to improve communication between research staff and participants. A qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews (n = 13) with research staff from Ghent University Hospital was conducted. Data were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically. Our results indicate that communication- and process-related factors affect the IC process. Emergent recommendations include communication training, more interactive information materials and the use of digital alternatives, increasing general knowledge about research participation and patient- and public involvement.

Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing

BACKGROUND

Mainstreaming of germline testing demands that all healthcare professionals have good communication skills, but few have genetic testing and counselling experience. We developed and evaluated educational workshops-Talking about Risk & UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING). Contents included: presentations and exercises, an interview with a geneticist about BRCA testing, screening and prevention implications, filmed interactions between surgeons, a genetic counsellor and geneticists with a fictitious family (proband had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant with triple-negative breast cancer, her older sister-BRCA2 heterozygous, and cousin-negative for BRCA2 variant).

METHODS

Twenty-one surgeons, 5 oncologists, 18 nurses and 9 genetic counsellors participated. Knowledge (18 item MCQ), communication skills (responses to 6 questions from proband and relatives) and self-confidence (discussing 9 genetic testing issues) were assessed pre- and post workshop.

RESULTS

Knowledge scores improved significantly post workshop (mean change = 7.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.37-7.74; P < 0.001), as did communication (mean change = 5.38; 95% CI 4.37-6.38; P < 0.001) and self-confidence (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Healthcare professionals' knowledge and self-confidence when discussing the risks and uncertainties in genetics are often poor. TRUSTING workshops significantly enhanced attendees' navigation of communication difficulties encountered and will be rolled out more widely.

Curricula, Teaching Methods, and Success Metrics of Clinician-Scientist Training Programs: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To describe the literature on clinician-scientist training programs to inform the development of contemporary and inclusive training models.

METHOD

The authors conducted a scoping review, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases from database inception until May 25, 2020. Studies presenting primary research that described and evaluated clinician-scientist training programs were identified for data abstraction. On the basis of deductive and inductive methods, information about program characteristics, curricula, teaching strategies, and success metrics was extracted. The extracted variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From the initial 7,544 citations retrieved and 4,974 unique abstracts screened, 81 studies were included. Of the 81 included studies, 65 (80.2%) were published between 2011 and 2020, 54 (66.7%) were conducted in the United States, and 64 (79.0%) described programs that provided broad clinician-scientist training. Few programs provided funding or protected research time or specifically addressed needs of trainees from underrepresented minority groups. Curricula emphasized research methods and knowledge dissemination, whereas patient-oriented research competencies were not described. Most programs incorporated aspects of mentorship and used multiple teaching strategies, such as direct and interactive instruction. Extrinsic metrics of success (e.g., research output) were dominant in reported program outcomes compared with markers of intrinsic success (e.g., career fulfillment).

CONCLUSIONS

Although programs are providing clinician-scientists with practical skills training, opportunities exist for curricular and pedagogic optimization that may better support this complex career path. Training programs for clinician-scientists can address contemporary issues of wellness and equity by reconsidering metrics of program success and evolving the core tenets of their education models to include equity, diversity, and inclusion principles and patient-oriented research competencies.

Tailored Messages About Research Participation: Using an Interactive Information Aid to Improve Study Recruitment

After a diagnosis of cancer (or other serious disease), patients may be asked to consider joining a clinical trial. Because most people are unfamiliar with the scientific concepts that are necessary to the provision of meaningful informed consent, patient education is necessary. Increasing knowledge alone is not sufficient; understanding how clinical trial participation aligns with personal circumstances and knowledge is central to the decision-making process. In this study, 302 cancer patients and survivors evaluated an interactive information aid (IA) designed to inform their decision to join a research study or clinical trial by providing tailored information to patients' responses to questions pertaining to seven key barriers or facilitators of clinical trial participation. The development of the IA was done with input from the authors' Clinical Translational Science Institute; linked components of the IA were vetted by members and leaders of the institution's NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results of the study indicated that the information aid was successful in significantly reducing fears and increasing knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions about research participation relative to a control condition. Thus, an interactive information aid that provides information that is responsive to patients' values, knowledge, and personal circumstances can help patients to be better prepared to consider a decision about research participation.

Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT

BACKGROUND

Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management.

DESIGN

A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; p = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions.

LIMITATIONS

First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Background

Increasingly, pragmatic randomised controlled trials are being used to evaluate surgical interventions, although they present particular difficulties in regards to recruitment and retention.

Methods

Procedures and processes related to implementation of a multi-centre pragmatic surgical randomised controlled trial are discussed. In this surgical trial, forecasting of consent rates based on similar trials and micro-costing of study activities with research partners were undertaken and a video was produced targeting recruiting staff with the aim of aiding recruitment. The baseline assessments were reviewed to ensure the timing did not impact on the outcome. Attrition due to procedure waiting time was monitored and data were triangulated for the primary outcome to ensure adequate follow-up data.

Results

Forecasting and costing ensured that the recruitment window was of adequate length and adequate resource was available for study procedures at multiple clinics in each hospital. Recruiting staff found the recruitment video useful. The comparison of patient-reported data collected prior to randomisation and prior to treatment provided confidence in the baseline data. Knowledge of participant dropout due to delays in treatment meant we were able to increase the recruitment target in a timely fashion, and along with the triangulation of data sources, this ensured adequate follow-up of randomised participants.

Conclusions

This paper provides a range of evidence-based and experience-based approaches which, collectively, resulted in meeting our study objectives and from which lessons may be transferable.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN41394716. Registered on 10 May 2012.

UKCRN Study ID: 12486.

Animations about Clinical Trial Participation for Cancer Patients and Survivors

Communicating about clinical trials and medical research is challenging. An appropriate communication is essential to reduce some of the barriers associated with poor patients' enrollment in clinical trials and with patients' uninformed consent or uninformed refusal. An experiment was conducted to assess the effects of educational animations compared to brochures with and without visuals, and with the materials currently used by the NIH. These materials focused on explaining placebos, randomization, the steps necessary to enroll in a clinical trial, and how and by who patients' protection is ensured. A total of 1194 cancer patients and survivors completed this 4 by 4 experiment through a Qualtrics panel. The findings showed that animations improved participants knowledge about and attitudes toward clinical trials and were more effective than brochures presenting information from the NIH, especially for those individuals with low motivation and low ability to comprehend health-related information. Several evidence-based theoretical explanations of the functioning of animations are provided.

Communication interventions in adult and pediatric oncology: A scoping review and analysis of behavioral targets

Background

Improving communication requires that clinicians and patients change their behaviors. Interventions might be more successful if they incorporate principles from behavioral change theories. We aimed to determine which behavioral domains are targeted by communication interventions in oncology.

Methods

Systematic search of literature indexed in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov (2000–October 2018) for intervention studies targeting communication behaviors of clinicians and/or patients in oncology. Two authors extracted the following information: population, number of participants, country, number of sites, intervention target, type and context, study design. All included studies were coded based on which behavioral domains were targeted, as defined by Theoretical Domains Framework.

Findings

Eighty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions varied widely in which behavioral domains were engaged. Knowledge and skills were engaged most frequently (85%, 75/88 and 73%, 64/88, respectively). Fewer than 5% of studies engaged social influences (3%, 3/88) or environmental context/resources (5%, 4/88). No studies engaged reinforcement. Overall, 7/12 behavioral domains were engaged by fewer than 30% of included studies. We identified methodological concerns in many studies. These 88 studies reported 188 different outcome measures, of which 156 measures were reported by individual studies.

Conclusions

Most communication interventions target few behavioral domains. Increased engagement of behavioral domains in future studies could support communication needs in feasible, specific, and sustainable ways. This study is limited by only including interventions that directly facilitated communication interactions, which excluded stand-alone educational interventions and decision-aids. Also, we applied stringent coding criteria to allow for reproducible, consistent coding, potentially leading to underrepresentation of behavioral domains.

Outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluation of communication training in oncology - a systematic literature review, an expert workshop, and recommendations for future research

BACKGROUND

Communication between health care provider and patients in oncology presents challenges. Communication skills training have been frequently developed to address those. Given the complexity of communication training, the choice of outcomes and outcome measures to assess its effectiveness is important. The aim of this paper is to 1) perform a systematic review on outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluations of communication training, 2) discuss specific challenges and 3) provide recommendations for the selection of outcomes in future studies.

METHODS

To identify studies and reviews reporting on the evaluation of communication training for health care professionals in oncology, we searched seven databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES and Web of Science). We extracted outcomes assessed and the respective assessment methods. We held a two-day workshop with experts (n = 16) in communication theory, development and evaluation of generic or cancer-specific communication training and/or outcome measure development to identify and address challenges in the evaluation of communication training in oncology. After the workshop, participants contributed to the development of recommendations addressing those challenges.

RESULTS

Out of 2181 references, we included 96 publications (33 RCTs, 2 RCT protocols, 4 controlled trials, 36 uncontrolled studies, 21 reviews) in the review. Most frequently used outcomes were participants' training evaluation, their communication confidence, observed communication skills and patients' overall satisfaction and anxiety. Outcomes were assessed using questionnaires for participants (57.3%), patients (36.0%) and observations of real (34.7%) and simulated (30.7%) patient encounters. Outcomes and outcome measures varied widely across studies. Experts agreed that outcomes need to be precisely defined and linked with explicit learning objectives of the training. Furthermore, outcomes should be assessed as broadly as possible on different levels (health care professional, patient and interaction level).

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring the effects of training programmes aimed at improving health care professionals' communication skills presents considerable challenges. Outcomes as well as outcome measures differ widely across studies. We recommended to link outcome assessment to specific learning objectives and to assess outcomes as broadly as possible.

Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians

Purpose

Gene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment.

Methods

Eight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs’ competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores.

Results

65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38–6.42; P = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72–9.25; P < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82–8.75; P < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37–3.92; P < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27–12.35; P < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs’ self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types (P < .001).

Conclusion

These short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs’ communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Enhancing practitioners' confidence in recruitment and consent in the EcLiPSE trial: a mixed-method evaluation of site training - a Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) study

Background

EcLiPSE (Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children) is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the United Kingdom. Challenges to success include the need to immediately administer an intervention without informed consent and changes in staffing during trial conduct, mainly due to physician rotations. Using literature on parents’ perspectives and research without prior consent (RWPC) guidance, we developed an interactive training package (including videos, simulation and question and answer sessions) and evaluated its dissemination and impact upon on practitioners’ confidence in recruitment and consent.

Methods

Questionnaires were administered before and immediately after training followed by telephone interviews (mean 11 months later), focus groups (mean 14 months later) and an online questionnaire (8 months before trial closure).

Results

One hundred and twenty-five practitioners from 26/30 (87%) participating hospitals completed a questionnaire before and after training. We conducted 10 interviews and six focus groups (comprising 36 practitioners); 199 practitioners working in all recruiting hospitals completed the online questionnaire. Before training, practitioners were concerned about recruitment and consent. Confidence increased after training for explaining (all scale 0–5, 95% CIs above 0 and p values < 0.05): the study (66% improved mean score before 3.28 and after 4.52), randomisation (47% improvement, 3.86 to 4.63), RWPC (72% improvement, 2.98 to 4.39), and addressing parents’ objections to randomisation (51% improvement, 3.37 to 4.25). Practitioners rated highly the content and clarity of the training, which was successfully disseminated. Some concerns about staff availability for training and consent discussions remained.

Conclusions

Training improved practitioners’ confidence in recruitment and RWPC. Our findings highlight the value of using parents’ perspectives to inform training and to engage practitioners in trials that are at high risk of being too challenging to conduct.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3273-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Training health professionals to recruit into challenging randomized controlled trials improved confidence: the development of the QuinteT randomized controlled trial recruitment training intervention

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate a training intervention for recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly for those anticipated to be difficult for recruitment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

One of three training workshops was offered to surgeons and one to research nurses. Self-confidence in recruitment was measured through questionnaires before and up to 3 months after training; perceived impact of training on practice was assessed after. Data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests and supplemented with findings from the content analysis of free-text comments.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven surgeons and 32 nurses attended. Self-confidence scores for all 10 questions increased after training [range of mean scores before 5.1-6.9 and after 6.9-8.2 (scale 0-10, all 95% confidence intervals are above 0 and all P-values <0.05)]. Awareness of hidden challenges of recruitment following training was high-surgeons' mean score 8.8 [standard deviation (SD), 1.2] and nurses' 8.4 (SD, 1.3) (scale 0-10); 50% (19/38) of surgeons and 40% (10/25) of nurses reported on a 4-point Likert scale that training had made "a lot" of difference to their RCT discussions. Analysis of free text revealed this was mostly in relation to how to convey equipoise, explain randomization, and manage treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons and research nurses reported increased self-confidence in discussing RCTs with patients, a raised awareness of hidden challenges and a positive impact on recruitment practice following QuinteT RCT Recruitment Training. Training will be made more available and evaluated in relation to recruitment rates and informed consent.

Identifying research priorities for effective retention strategies in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition.

METHODS

Seventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority.

RESULTS

Fifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact during a trial, the use of routinely collected data, the frequency and timing of reminders, triggered site training and the time needed to complete questionnaires was deemed critical. Research into the effectiveness of Christmas cards for site staff was not of critical importance.

CONCLUSION

The surveys of current practices demonstrates that a variety of strategies are being used to mitigate missing data but with little evidence to support their use. Six retention strategies were deemed critically important within the Delphi survey and should be a primary focus of future retention research.

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.

"You Need to Be a Good Listener": Recruiters' Use of Relational Communication Behaviors to Enhance Clinical Trial and Research Study Accrual

Medical and research professionals who discuss clinical trials and research studies with potential participants face an often daunting challenge, particularly when recruiting from minority and underserved populations. This study reports on findings from a focus group study of 63 research coordinators, study nurses, professional recruiters, and other professionals in Indianapolis, IN and Miami, FL who work to recruit from minority and underserved populations. These professionals discussed the importance of creating a sense of connection with potential participants as part of the recruitment and retention process. Building a relationship, however fleeting, involved a number of concrete behaviors, including listening to personal information, expressing empathy, and then providing reciprocal self-disclosures; having repeated contact, usually by working in the same environment over an extended period of time; demonstrating respect through politeness and the use of honorifics; going the extra mile for participants; offering flexibility in scheduling follow-up appointments; and creating a sense of personal and community trust by being truthful. The implications of these findings for clinical trial and research study accrual are discussed.

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians' Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.

CONCLUSIONS

Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

Patient perceptions concerning clinical trials in oncology patients

Background

Clinical trials are critical to scientifically evaluate promising new therapies in oncology, but patient accrual to these studies is persistently low. Patient preference plays an important role in enrollment in these trials. We performed this survey to evaluate the perceptions of newly diagnosed oncology patients about clinical trials and the reasons why they wish to or not to participate in these trials.

Methods

Patients were given a ten question survey reflective of their attitudes regarding clinical trials as a treatment option at their initial visit. The self-directed questionnaire was scored on an ordinate scale from strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [5].

Results

Ninety three patients were surveyed in the cancer specific multispecialty clinics in an academic center. Our patients expected their providers to discuss all information relating to clinical trials and eligibility at the first visit (65.4% agree and 15.4% neutral, p < 0.0001). Patients felt their privacy and safety would be safeguarded in the University sponsored trials (56.8% agree, and 25.7% neutral, p < 0.0001). Over 80% patients showed their unwillingness to participate in randomized clinical trials (disagree 61%, neutral 19.5%, p < 0.001). Patients also showed less likelihood to participate in clinical trials as a first treatment option (48.7% disagree and 28.9% neutral, p0.0161), but were willing to consider participating in a clinical trial if the conventional treatment failed. Industry sponsored trials, phase 1 trials, investigator initiated trials with the involved tests and time commitment and altruistic reasons did not significantly deviate from the mean preference analyzed using Fisher's exact test analysis.

Conclusions

Patients consider the option of clinical trials as important in their treatment, and expect to be informed by their oncologist about such trials. Newly diagnosed cancer patients perceive randomization and first line trials negatively. Since randomization data provides new standards of care and hope for improved treatment, patients and their families must be educated of their importance.

Publicly funded practice-oriented clinical trials: of importance for healthcare payers

AIM

Many questions of relevance to patients/society are not answered by industry-sponsored clinical trials. We consider whether there are benefits to governments in funding practice-oriented clinical trials.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search including publications on institutions' websites was performed and supplemented with information gathered from (inter)national stakeholders.

RESULTS

Areas were identified where public funding of clinical trials is of importance for society, such as head-to-head comparisons or medical areas where companies have no motivation to invest. The available literature suggests publicly funded research programs could provide a positive return on investment. The main hurdles (e.g., sufficient funding and absence of equipoise) and success factors (e.g., selection of research questions and research infrastructure) for the successful conduct of publicly funded trials were identified.

CONCLUSION

Governments should see public funding of pragmatic practice-oriented clinical trials as a good opportunity to improve the selection and quality of treatments and stimulate efficient use of limited resources.

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.

For the Benefit of Others: Reasons Why Women with Breast Cancer Participate in RCTs

BACKGROUND

Appreciation of the barriers and drivers affecting enrolment in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is important for future trial design, communication and information provision.

METHODS

As part of an intervention to facilitate UK multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, women with breast cancer who discussed trials with doctors or research nurses completed questionnaires examining i) clarity of trial information and ii) reasons for their trial decision.

RESULTS

152 women completed the questionnaires; 113/152 (74%) consented to RCT enrolment. Patients' satisfaction with communication about the trial information was very good, irrespective of participation decisions. Acceptors' and decliners' responses to 9/16 statements concerning decisions about trial participation differed significantly. 'Wanting to help with doctor's research' influenced 100% acceptors compared to 57% of decliners (p < 0.001). Decliners were more likely to be 'worried about randomisation' (20 vs. 39%; p < 0.035) and to 'want doctor to choose treatment rather than be randomised' (31 vs. 53%; p < 0.031). Primary reason for trial acceptance was altruism; 'I feel that others with my illness will benefit from the results of the trial', 58/108 (54%).

CONCLUSION

A majority of women accepted RCT entry citing altruistic motivations as the primary driver for participation. Trial design and setting (metastatic or adjuvant) had little impact on participation.

Temporal Trends and Predictors for Cancer Clinical Trial Availability for Medically Underserved Populations

BACKGROUND

Lack of access to available cancer clinical trials has been cited as a key factor limiting trial accrual, particularly among medically underserved populations. We examined the trends and factors in clinical trial availability within a major U.S. safety-net hospital system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified cancer clinical trials activated at the Harold C. Simmons Cancer from 1991 to 2014 and recorded the characteristics of the trials that were and were not activated at the Parkland Health and Hospital System satellite site. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between trial characteristics and nonactivation status, and chi-square analysis to determine the association between the trial characteristics and the reasons for nonactivation.

RESULTS

A total of 773 trials were identified, of which 152 (20%) were not activated at Parkland. In multivariable analysis, nonactivation at Parkland was associated with trial year, sponsor, and phase. Compared with the 1991-2006 period, clinical trials in the 2007-2014 period were almost eightfold more likely not to be activated at Parkland. The most common reasons for nonactivation at Parkland were an inability to perform the study procedures (27%) and the startup costs (15%).

CONCLUSION

Over time, in this single-center setting, a decreasing proportion of cancer clinical trials were available to underserved populations. Trial complexity and costs appeared to account for much of this trend. Efforts to overcome these barriers will be key to equitable access to clinical trials, efficient accrual, and the generalizability of the results.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite numerous calls to increase and diversify cancer clinical trial accrual, the present study found that cancer clinical trial activation rates in a safety-net setting for medically underserved populations have decreased substantially in recent years. The principal reasons for study nonactivation were expenses and an inability to perform the study-related procedures, reflecting the increasing costs and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Future efforts need to focus on strategies to mitigate the increasing disparity in access to clinical research and cutting-edge therapies, which also threatens to hinder study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.

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.

Teaching communication skills in clinical settings: comparing two applications of a comprehensive program with standardized and real patients

BACKGROUND

Communication is important for the quality of clinical practice, and programs have been implemented to improve healthcare providers' communication skills. However, the consistency of programs teaching communication skills has received little attention, and debate exists about the application of acquired skills to real patients. This study inspects whether (1) results from a communication program are replicated with different samples, and (2) results with standardized patients apply to interviews with real patients.

METHODS

A structured, nine-month communication program was applied in two consecutive years to two different samples of healthcare professionals (25 in the first year, 20 in the second year). Results were assessed at four different points in time, each year, regarding participants' confidence levels (self-rated), basic communication skills in interviews with standardized patients, and basic communication skills in interviews with real patients. Data were analyzed using GLM Repeated-Measures procedures.

RESULTS

Improvements were statistically significant in both years in all measures except in simulated patients' assessment of the 2008 group. Differences between the two samples were non-significant. Differences between interviews with standardized and with real patients were also non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The program's positive outcomes were replicated in different samples, and acquired skills were successfully applied to real-patient interviews. This reinforces this type of program structure as a valuable training tool, with results translating into real situations. It also adds to the reliability of the assessment instruments employed, though these may need adaptation in the case of real patients.

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.

Barriers Against Psychosocial Communication: Oncologists' Perceptions

Purpose

To explore oncologists' psychosocial attitudes and beliefs and their perceptions regarding barriers against psychosocial communication.

Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to oncologists in Sweden (n = 537). Questions covered demography, the Physician Psychosocial Beliefs Scale (PPBS), and barriers against psychosocial communication. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine what factors contribute the most to the PPBS score and the total number of barriers and barriers affecting clinical practice, respectively. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to determine correlation between PPBS score and number of barriers.

Results

Questionnaire response rate was 64%. Mean PPBS value was 85.5 (range, 49 to 123; SD, 13.0). Most oncologists (93%) perceived one or more barriers in communicating psychosocial aspects with patients. On average, five different communication barriers were perceived, of which most were perceived to affect clinical practice. These barriers included insufficient consultation time, lack of resources for taking care of problems discovered, and lack of methods to evaluate patients' psychosocial health in clinical practice. There was a positive correlation (rs = 0.490; P < .001) between the PPBS score and the number of perceived barriers (ie, less psychosocially oriented oncologists perceived more barriers). Oncologists with supplementary education with a psychosocial focus perceived fewer barriers/barriers affecting clinical practice (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively) and were more psychosocially oriented (P = .001).

Conclusion

Oncologists perceive many different barriers affecting psychosocial communication in clinical practice. Interventions aiming to improve psychosocial communication must therefore be multifaceted and individualized to clinics and individual oncologists. It is important to minimize barriers to facilitate optimal care and treatment of patients with cancer.

Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the parental understanding of informed consent information in first-line randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including children with malignant solid tumours and to assess parents' needs for decision-making.

DESIGN

Observational prospective study.

SETTING

3 paediatric oncology centres in the Parisian region in France.

PARTICIPANTS

53 parents were approached to participate in a RCT for their child with malignant solid tumour, over a 1-year period. 40 parents have been interviewed in our study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Parental understanding of information in RCTs, parents' needs for decision-making. Parents were questioned by a psychologist, independent of the paediatric oncology teams, using a semidirected interview, 1 (M1) and 6 months (M6) after the consent was sought.

RESULTS

18 parents (45%) did not understand the concept of randomisation. Half of the parents could explain neither the aim of the clinical trial nor the potential benefit to their child of inclusion. 35 parents (87.5%) expressed very few specific risks related to the trial. Being mostly French-speaking (p=0.03) and the reading of the information sheet by the parents (p=0.0025) improved their understanding. The parental comprehension did not differ between M1 and M6. The principal factors underlying their decision were confidence in the medical team (39%), wish to access to the best treatment (37%) and the best quality of life (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite medical explanations, parents have limited knowledge in some areas in first-line RCTs and improvements of information process are required. The risks specific to the randomised trial are underestimated by parents and the unproven nature of the treatment is not well-known or understood.

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.

Patients' regrets after participating in a randomized controlled trials depended on their involvement in the decision making

OBJECTIVE

To identify the factors associated with long-term regrets expressed a posteriori by randomized controlled trial (RCT) participants questioned about their decision to participate in an RCT.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Participants were questioned 6 years on average after their inclusion in a breast cancer adjuvant therapy RCT. Among 115 women from 21 centers, 93 (81%) answered a self-administered questionnaire based on the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).

RESULTS

Mean DRS score was 16.8 (standard deviation=15.9); 43.0% of participants expressed mild regret, and 25.8% expressed moderate to strong regret. A quarter of the women (25.6%) said that the decision was taken by the doctor alone, and 13.5% said it was not consistent with their own wishes. In the multivariate ordinal regression analysis, an involuntarily passive role in decision making was found to be associated with greater regret (cumulative proportional odds ratio=7.3, 95% confidence interval=2.0-27.6), regardless of age and being allotted or not to the standard treatment in the RCT.

CONCLUSION

Whether patients' regret depended on their level of participation in the decision making or vice versa could not be determined in this cross-sectional survey, but efforts should be made to ensure that patients' participation in trials is always based on an active personal decision.

"The promise of community-based advocacy and education efforts for increasing cancer clinical trials accrual"

Only 3% of cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). A number of barriers to participation, particularly for minority groups, can be addressed through community-focused education and advocacy efforts. Working with community partnerships, a pilot program sought to change knowledge, attitudes, and role behaviors among community leaders, primary care providers (PCPs), and clinical researchers about CCTs, to increase patient awareness of and participation in CCTs. A mixed method evaluation utilized quantitative analysis of surveys administered to participants during the program period (2006-2008) and qualitative data from interviews with key participants. Programmatic efforts were effective in increasing knowledge and training community leaders and PCPs to disseminate messages about clinical trials, and ultimately increasing patient inquiries about local trials. Training improved cultural competency skills among clinical researchers to recruit and retain CCT participants. Partnerships fostered new processes and structures to facilitate CCT participation in their communities. Clinical trials education and advocacy efforts through community partnerships have an important role in enhancing clinical trial access and in increasing clinical trial participation. Oncologists' involvement in and leadership of such partnerships are critical to promoting CCT accrual, particularly for minority groups.

Evaluation of an educational program to improve communication with patients about early-phase trial participation

BACKGROUND

Discussing early-phase cancer trials is challenging; most offer little personal benefit to patients with life-limiting illnesses who frequently have a poor understanding of and misconceptions about the therapeutic aims. We evaluated an evidence-based training program aimed at enhancing communication.

METHODS

Prior to and after the intervention, 47 health care professionals (HCPs) experienced in early-phase trial recruitment were audio taped discussing trials with patient simulators who completed postinterview evaluations. Coders rated the interviews for the presence of information areas required to elicit ethical consent. HCPs reported their self-confidence on 15 different aspects of trial discussion.

RESULTS

Significant objective and subjective improvements in communication were found after the workshop. Analyses of audio tapes showed positive shifts in: establishing the patient's knowledge of their prognosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; p = .002), discussing symptomatic care (OR, 3.8; p < .001), the aims of the trial (OR, 2.6; p =.002), and the unlikelihood of medical benefit (OR, 3.0; p = .021). Patient simulator ratings showed improvements in: the awareness of palliative care and symptom control (OR, 2.1; p = .004), the voluntariness of participation (OR, 3.7; p = .015), the opportunity to ask questions (OR, 2.9; p = .044), and the time to consider participation (OR, 6.1; p = .009). HCPs' self-confidence increased significantly for all 15 items (OR range, 1.5-2.9; p ≤ .001).

CONCLUSION

This short, intensive workshop changed communication skills competency and self-efficacy in ways likely to promote valid, ethically informed consent from patients contemplating trial entry.

Advance care planning for patients with COPD: past, present and future

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the importance, current status and directions for improvement of advance care planning and communication about end-of-life care for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

METHODS

Narrative review of the currently available literature regarding advance care planning and communication about end-of-life care in COPD.

RESULTS

Advance care planning, including patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care, can improve outcomes for patients and their families and may be particularly important for patients with COPD. Patient-clinician communication is needed to inform and prepare patients about their diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and what dying might be like. It is necessary to help patients and their clinicians understand patient preferences for life-sustaining treatments. Despite these advantages, advance care planning and conversations about end-of-life care in current practice are limited and their quality is often poor.

CONCLUSION

Advance care planning can improve outcomes for patients and their relatives. Recent studies provide directions for how to facilitate advance care planning for patients with COPD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Advance care planning ought to be part of care for patients with advanced COPD. Future studies should focus on interventions to facilitate advance care planning in patients with COPD with the goal of improving the quality of end-of-life care.

Consent timing and experience: modifiable factors that may influence interest in clinical research

PURPOSE

Low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials have been attributed to patient, institutional, and study characteristics. However, few studies have examined factors related to the consent process. We therefore evaluated the impact of consent timing and experience on markers of patient interest in research.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in a cancer center tissue repository. During enrollment, patients were asked if they were willing to be contacted in the future to provide medical follow-up information and/or to participate in other clinical research. We analyzed the association between patient responses to these questions and consent process factors using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 922 patients evaluated, 85% agreed to be contacted to provide follow-up information, and 83% agreed to be contacted to participate in future research studies. In univariate analysis, willingness to be contacted for future research was associated with consenter experience (P = .01) and had a trend toward association with the timing of enrollment in relation to diagnosis (P = .08), but it was not associated with patient sex, race, or diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, responses remained associated with consenter experience (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Factors related to the consent process, including consenter experience and timing of study enrollment, are significantly associated with or have a trend toward association with markers of patient interest in clinical research. These understudied and potentially modifiable variables warrant further evaluation.

Exploring consent to randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials in oncology

AIMS

Randomized placebo-controlled trials are critical for advancing knowledge in oncology, yet little is known about optimal communication for informed consent. This study aimed to identify patient preferences for and satisfaction with three consultation styles (information-focused, emotion-focused and collaborative) in simulated discussions of four clinical trial concepts (randomization, placebo, tissue analysis and oncologists' recommendation).

METHODS

In total 75 Australian cancer patients and carers, or both, viewed videotaped simulated consultations with a doctor and patient discussing a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Their satisfaction and preferences for both consultation style and information were assessed. The patients' characteristics and decision-making preferences were also evaluated as potential predictors for consultation style preference.

RESULTS

Participants preferred a collaborative consultation style when discussing randomization (74.6%), placebo (71.4%) and oncologist's recommendation (77%). However an emotion-focused consultation style was preferred when discussing tissue analysis (81%). The participants represented a highly information-seeking group, although most favoured collaborative or passive roles in treatment decision-making. Limited variables were identified that predict consultation style preference.

CONCLUSION

While supporting the value of a collaborative approach to clinical trial communications, the study finding that tissue analysis requires a more emotion-focused approach highlights a new focus for trial communication and confirms the need for doctors to remain flexible in their consultation style.

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.

Reasons given by patients for participating, or not, in Phase 1 cancer trials

BACKGROUND

Communication with patients contemplating Phase 1 cancer trial participation can be challenging. Controversy exists as to whether they are provided with sufficient information to give genuinely informed consent. We present data examining the reasons patients gave for trial entry.

METHOD

Following discussions with oncologists about Phase 1 trials, participants completed a 19-item study specific 'accept or decline measure' exploring hope, expectations of benefit, altruism, concerns, and general perceptions of the trial information. They also completed 2 standardised questionnaires measuring psychological morbidity and predisposition towards optimism.

RESULTS

Forty patients completed the study questionnaires. Patients were generally optimistic with few concerns about the experimental nature of Phase 1 trials. Most 36/40 (90%) consented to trial entry. Fifty-one percent thought the trial was the only treatment option available. The four main reasons for trial entry were: expectation of some medical benefit (21%); trial the best available option (21%); to maintain hope (15%) and to help with research (13%). Only one patient gave altruism as their main reason for trial participation.

CONCLUSION

Patients considering Phase 1 trials may be a self-selected group with optimistic expectations of personal benefit driving trial entry rather than altruism. Achieving genuinely informed consent and avoidance of therapeutic misconceptions in such patients may be difficult.

The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials

Background:

Barriers to randomised clinical trial (RCT) recruitment include failure to identify eligible patients, reluctance of staff to approach them and attitudes of some health-care professionals and patients. As part of a larger UK prospective study examining the communication and involvement in RCTs of 22 multidisciplinary teams in Wales, we also assessed the attitudes of patients they treat towards trials.

Methods:

Out of 1146 patients attending outpatient departments who were approached, 1146 (93%) completed the seven-item Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ), probing their general attitudes towards medical research and likely participation in a hypothetical two-arm RCT.

Results:

Randomisation initially deterred many patients from endorsing a willingness to participate. However, if information about the trial logic, voluntary nature and rights to withdraw were provided, together with further treatment details, 83% (886 out of 1066) would potentially participate. Other variables associated with a positive inclination towards participation included previous trial experience (P<0.01), male gender (P<0.01) and younger age, with patients ⩾70 years less likely to consider trial entry (P<0.01).

Conclusion:

The majority of patients were receptive to RCT participation. Many of those initially disinclined because of randomisation would consider joining if given further details that form part of standard GCP consent guidelines. These data show the importance and need for clear communication and information to encourage RCT participation. Evidence-based training courses are available to assist with this.

What oncologists believe they said and what patients believe they heard: an analysis of phase I trial discussions

PURPOSE; Evaluation of the communication and informed consent process in phase I clinical trial interviews to provide authentic, practice-based content for inclusion in a communication skills training intervention for health care professionals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventeen oncologists and 52 patients from five United Kingdom cancer centers consented to recording of phase I trial discussions. Following each consultation, clinicians completed questionnaires indicating areas they felt they had discussed, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with patients examining their recall and understanding. Patients and oncologists also completed the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire, measuring predisposition toward optimism. Independent researchers coded the consultations identifying discussion of key information areas and how well this was done. Observed levels of agreement were analyzed for each consultation between oncologist-coder, oncologist-patient, and patient-coder pairs.

RESULTS

In several key areas, information was either missing or had been explained but was interpreted incorrectly by patients. Discussion of prognosis was a frequent omission, with patients and coders significantly more likely to agree that oncologists had not discussed it (odds, 4.8; P < .001). In contrast, coders and oncologists were more likely to agree that alternate care plans to phase I trial entry had been explained (odds, 2.5; P = .023).

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that fundamental components of communication and information sharing about phase I trial participation are often missing from interviews. Important omissions included discussion of prognosis and ensuring patient understanding about supportive care. These findings will inform educational initiatives to assist communication about phase I trials.

Disclosing information about randomised controlled trials in oncology: training concept and evaluation of an individualised communication skills training for physicians COM-ON-rct

When physicians disclose information about randomised controlled trials, they have to balance the requirements of conducting high standard research and the respect for patients' rights. Physicians need training in this difficult matter. An individualised communication skills training (CST) about randomised controlled trials for oncologists has been developed. The aim of this publication is to describe the concept of our CST and present data of evaluation by the participants: First, a theoretical introduction about a communication model and important ethical and legal issues was presented. Individual learning goals of participants were then derived through video assessment with actor-patients. The learning goals were the basis for practicing in role play. Individual coaching helped physicians to transfer the made experience into their daily work. Forty physicians have been trained. The acceptance of the training concept was assessed by a questionnaire consisting of 14 items and using a 6-point scale from 1 (very best) to 6 (very bad): the individualised CST was highly accepted (mean = 1.33). Practicing with actor-patients (mean = 1.4), providing constructive feedback (mean = 1.3) and assessing individual learning goals (mean = 1.85) were seen as helpful. Our CST trains physicians to realise best research standards and incorporate patients' rights.

The implementation and assessment of a comprehensive communication skills training curriculum for oncologists

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to report the implementation and assessment of the Comskil Training Curriculum at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

METHOD

Twenty-eight attending physicians and surgeons participated in communication skills training modules as part of a train-the-trainer program. Doctors were video recorded in clinical consultations with patients two times before training and two times after training, resulting in 112 video recordings for analysis. Recordings were coded using the Comskil Coding System.

RESULTS

Communication skills related to two of the six major skill sets, Establishing the Consultation Framework and Checking, increased following training. Limited changes emerged in three skill sets, while one skill set, Shared Decision Making, did not change. Doctors who attended more training modules had higher levels of change. Female participants demonstrated three skills more frequently than males post-training.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention produced significant communication skills uptake in a group of experienced attending clinicians, mediated by the amount of training. Future research should focus on the dose of training necessary to achieve skills uptake and the effect of skills training on patient outcomes.

The impact of consenter characteristics and experience on patient interest in clinical research

BACKGROUND

To explain the historically low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials, several factors have been studied. These include subject characteristics and attitudes, clinical trial availability and eligibility criteria, and physician attitudes and communication skills. However, the impact of nonphysician research personnel, who often consent patients for studies, is unclear. We therefore evaluated the association between consenter characteristics and subject interest in clinical research.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of subjects enrolled in a university-based cancer center tissue repository. During enrollment, subjects were asked if they were willing to be contacted in the future to (a) provide medical follow-up information and (b) participate in other clinical research. We analyzed the association between responses to these questions and consenter characteristics using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 181 consenters enrolled 922 subjects. The majority of subjects agreed to be contacted for follow-up (84.9%) and future research (83.1%). Subject willingness to be contacted for future research was associated with greater consenter experience in univariate and multivariate analyses. In multivariate analysis, subject willingness to be contacted for future research was associated with discordance between subject and consenter gender, but not with subject gender, race, or income, or consenter gender or race.

CONCLUSIONS

Consenter experience and subject-consenter gender discordance were associated with greater subject interest in participating in future research. The role of consenters in clinical research merits future study and should be considered in efforts to increase cancer clinical trial accrual.