Factors associated with participation in breast cancer treatment clinical trials

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02356549.

Participant Preferences for Pharmacologic Chronic Pain Treatment Trial Characteristics: An ACTTION Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Study

Barriers to clinical trial recruitment can delay study completion, potentially resulting in increased costs and an unrepresentative sample. In the current study of 150 participants with chronic pain, we used a computerized adaptive choice-based conjoint survey that included 8 characteristics that may affect enrollment in pharmacologic pain treatment trials (ie, treatment allocation, frequency of pain ratings, treatment administration method, current medications, number of study visits, availability of evening and weekend visits, invasiveness of laboratory procedures, payment). These data were analyzed using Sawtooth Software ver. 8.4.8 (Sawtooth Software, Inc, Orem, UT), which identifies the characteristics that dominate participants' decisions across multiple sets of potential trials. Three characteristics had the largest relative importance in participants' trial preferences: 1) invasiveness of required laboratory procedures (ie, 22%), with no procedures or blood tests preferred over ice-water sensory testing or skin biopsy; 2) ability to continue current pain medications (21%); and 3) payment for study participation (21%), with higher payment preferred. The fourth most important characteristic was number of study visits (13%), with participants preferring fewer in-person visits and more phone contacts. Understanding the preferences of potential participants is an important step toward enhancing enrollment in pain treatment trials.

PERSPECTIVE

This article presents the preferences of individuals with chronic pain conditions regarding modifiable pain treatment trial characteristics (eg, number of study visits, payment, treatment allocation). These findings may help to improve enrollment into analgesic clinical trials and in turn accelerate the development of new pain treatments.

Impact of clinical trial on survival outcomes

The number of patients with breast cancer who participate in therapeutic clinical trials remains low. One reason is a lack of opportunity; another is health care providers who do not recommend trials because they fear poorer outcome from the use of new drugs. Thus, we compared survival outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who participated in first-line therapeutic clinical trials with outcome in patients who had never enrolled in a clinical trial and received only standard care. We hypothesized that first-line therapeutic clinical trials does not have a negative survival outcome. We reviewed the records of patients with MBC who were treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2000, and December 2010. The medical records of 5501 patients with MBC were screened, and 652 patients-285 in the trial arm and 367 in the control arm-met our specific eligible criteria. The median follow-up of our cohort was 7.16 years (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.53-7.64 years). Among the global population, no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) were observed between the treatment arms: for the clinical trial cohort, median PFS was 7 months (95 % CI 5.72-8.71 months), and median OS was 28.48 months (95 % CI 22.70-34.60 months). For the control cohort, median PFS was 10.02 months (95 % CI 7.13-11.99 months), and median OS was 28.71 months (95 % CI 24.41-31.31 months) (P = .089 and .335, respectively). Enrollment in first-line MBC therapeutic clinical trials does not result in less favorable survival outcome than that in MBC patients who never enrolled in a clinical trial.

Feasibility of Virtual Research Visits in Fox Trial Finder

Background: Fox Trial Finder is an online registry for individuals with and without Parkinson disease (PD) interested in participating in PD research. However, distance or disability could prevent such individuals from participating in traditional, clinic-based research at major centers.

Objective: Use videoconferencing to connect participants to specialists to: (1) demonstrate feasibility of virtual research visits within this population (2) collect phenotypic data of the participants, (3) validate self-reported diagnosis, and (4) gauge interest in virtual research visits.

Methods: We solicited volunteers throughout the United States through Fox Trial Finder. Interested individuals with PD provided consent, were given web cameras if needed, completed baseline surveys, and downloaded videoconferencing software remotely. Participants had a test connection and assessment appointment which included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), then a virtual research visit with a neurologist who reviewed their history and assessed their PD using a modified Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Neurologists assessed PD diagnosis and symptomatology. Physicians and participants were surveyed about their experience.

Results: Of 204 individuals who consented, 166 (81% ) individuals from 39 states completed all visits. The mean age was 62 and mean disease duration was 8.0 years. Mean MoCA score was 26.5, and mean modified MDS-UPDRS motor score was 22.8 (out of a possible 124). Neurologists judged PD as the most likely diagnosis in 97% of cases. Overall satisfaction with the visits was 79% (satisfied or very satisfied) among neurologists and 93% among participants.

Conclusions: Through virtual research visits, neurologists engaged, characterized, and validated self-reported diagnosis in individuals with PD over a broad geography. This model may facilitate future research participation.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Patient and treatment factors associated with survival among adult glioblastoma patients: A USA population-based study from 2000-2010

In this study, we utilized the USA surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database to examine factors influencing survival of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients. GBM is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults and despite advances in treatment, prognosis remains poor. Using the SEER database, we defined a cohort of adult patients for the years 2000-2009 with confirmed GBM and minimum follow-up of 12 months. A total of 14,675 patients with GBM met the inclusion criteria. Demographic, clinical, and treatment variables were examined. Death was the primary outcome. Median survival time was 11 months. Patients had increasingly longer survival over the decade span. We found, on multivariate analysis, that significantly worse survival was associated with age >75 years, male sex, unmarried status, and non-Hispanic Caucasian race/ethnicity. Patients in the Northeast had a significantly lower risk of mortality. Patients with tumors that were non-lateralized and >3 cm fared worse. Patients who did not receive adjuvant radiation also had worse outcomes. Gross total resection imparted a survival advantage for patients compared to biopsy or partial resection. Thus, this report adds to the growing body of literature supporting the positive role of maximal resection on patient survival.

Factors associated with participation in a prevention trial aimed at reducing biomarkers of breast cancer risk

OBJECTIVES

Poor enrollment into prevention trials is a major obstacle to the conduct of clinical investigations. This study focuses on cognitive and affective influences on the decision to participate in a clinical trial aimed at reducing biomarkers of breast cancer risk.

METHODS

Following a decision to participate or not in a clinical trial focused on reduction of breast cancer risk, women were recruited into the present study. Data were gathered via telephone survey.

RESULTS

One hundred healthy women took part in the current study, 72 of whom had participated in the clinical trial, and 28 of whom had declined participation. Women who decided to enroll perceived more benefits and fewer costs, and they experienced more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions. They also made the decision more quickly, more easily, were more satisfied with it, and had fewer regrets than women who declined participation in the clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants to this clinical trial differed from nonparticipants in terms of antecedents, process, and outcomes of the decision to enroll.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Although obstacles exist, accrual might be improved by greater emphasis on the practical and psychosocial benefits to participants.

Perceptions of Cancer Clinical Research Among African American Men in North Carolina

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the men and women who participated in our Focus Groups and shared with us their very personal cancer experience. Their insight is valuable, and will inform and improve cancer care for future generations. The authors thank the Greensboro area Community Research Advocates - especially April Durr, Elvira Mebane, Marie McAdoo, Kathy Norcott, and Cindy Taylor - who assisted in the conduct of the study, including interpretation of results. They also thank Gratia Wright of First Research Group for her expertise in moderating and executing all of the focus groups, and Lindsey Haynes-Maslow for her assistance in responding to reviewer comments. The study was funded as a part of the Carolina Community Network program, funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (U01-CA114629). This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

OBJECTIVE

The problem of cancer health disparities is substantial. Clinical trials are widely advocated as a means of reducing disparities and bringing state-of-the-art care to the broader community, where most cancer care is delivered. This study sought to develop a better understanding of why disproportionately few African American men enroll in clinical trials given their substantial cancer burden.

DESIGN

This study applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods to design and conduct four focus groups of African American male cancer survivors and their caregivers in North Carolina.

RESULTS

Among major themes, participants expressed confusion about the relationship between clinical trials, treatment, and research: signifying patient confusion and misinterpretation of common clinical trial terminology. Social norms including gender barriers and generational differences remain problematic; participants often reported that men do not talk about health issues, are unwilling to go to the doctor, and exhibit misapprehension and distrust regarding trials. Participants perceived this misunderstanding as detrimental to community health and expressed the need for more clarity in clinical trials information and a more fundamental social openness and communication about cancer detection and treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate the importance of clinical trial education in both traditional provider referral to trials and also in general patient navigation. To dispel pervasive misapprehension regarding placebos, clinical trial information should emphasize the role of standard care in modern cancer treatment trials. Many participants described willingness to participate in a trial upon physician recommendation, suggesting merit in improving patient-physician communication through culturally competent terminology and trial referral systems.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ligand- and Structure-Based Drug Design of Non-Steroidal Aromatase Inhibitors (NSAIs) in Breast Cancer

Aromatase is a multienzyme complex overexpressed in breast cancer and responsible for estrogen production. It is the potential target for designing anti-breast cancer drugs. Ligand and Structure-Based Drug Designing approaches (LBDD and SBDD) are involved in development of active and more specific Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitors (NSAIs). Different LBDD and SBDD approaches are presented here to understand their utility in designing novel NSAIs. It is observed that molecules should possess a five or six membered heterocyclic nitrogen containing ring to coordinate with heme portion of aromatase for inhibition. Moreover, one or two hydrogen bond acceptor features, hydrophobicity, and steric factors may play crucial roles for anti-aromatase activity. Electrostatic, van der Waals, and p-p interactions are other important factors that determine binding affinity of inhibitors. HQSAR, LDA-QSAR, GQSAR, CoMFA, and CoMSIA approaches, pharmacophore mapping followed by virtual screening, docking, and dynamic simulation may be effective approaches for designing new potent anti-aromatase molecules.

Barriers to participation in a randomized controlled trial of Qigong exercises amongst cancer survivors: lessons learnt

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials on cancer subjects have one of the highest dropout rates. Barriers to recruitment range from patient-related, through institutional-related to staff-related factors. This paper highlights the low response rate and the recruitment barriers faced in our Qigong exercises trial.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

The Qigong trial is a three-arm trial with a priori power size of 114 patients for 80% power. The University Malaya Medical Centre database showed a total of 1,933 patients from 2006-2010 and 751 patients met our inclusion criteria. These patients were approached via telephone interview. 131 out of 197 patients attended the trial and the final response rate was 48% (n=95/197).

RESULTS

Multiple barriers were identified, and were regrouped as patient- related, clinician-related and/or institutional related. A major consistent barrier was logistic difficulty related to transportation and car parking at the Medical Centre. conclusions: All clinical trials must pay considerable attention to the recruitment process and it should even be piloted to identify potential barriers and facilitators to reduce attrition rate in trials.

Impact of prior cancer on eligibility for lung cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In oncology clinical trials, the assumption that a prior cancer diagnosis could interfere with study conduct or outcomes results in frequent exclusion of such patients. We determined the prevalence and characteristics of this practice in lung cancer clinical trials and estimated impact on trial accrual.

METHODS

We reviewed lung cancer clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by the Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group for exclusion criteria related to a prior cancer diagnosis. We estimated prevalence of prior primary cancer diagnoses among lung cancer patients using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. We assessed the association between trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion using chi-square analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Fifty-one clinical trials (target enrollment 13072 patients) were included. Forty-one (80%) excluded patients with a prior cancer diagnosis as follows: any prior (14%), within five years (43%), within two or three years (7%), or active cancer (16%). In SEER-Medicare data (n = 210509), 56% of prior cancers were diagnosed within five years before the lung cancer diagnosis. Across trials, the estimated number and proportion of patients excluded because of prior cancer ranged from 0-207 and 0%-18%. Prior cancer was excluded in 94% of trials with survival primary endpoints and 73% of trials with nonsurvival primary endpoints (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of patients are reflexively excluded from lung cancer clinical trials because of prior cancer. This inclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of trials with nonsurvival endpoints. More research is needed to understand the basis and ramifications of this exclusion policy.

Attitudinal barriers to participation in oncology clinical trials: factor analysis and correlates of barriers

Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is low. Little is known about attitudinal barriers to participation, particularly among patients who may be offered a trial during an imminent initial oncology consult. The aims of the present study were to confirm the presence of proposed subscales of a recently developed cancer clinical trial attitudinal barriers measure, describe the most common cancer clinical trials attitudinal barriers, and evaluate socio-demographic, medical and financial factors associated with attitudinal barriers. A total of 1256 patients completed a survey assessing demographic factors, perceived financial burden, prior trial participation and attitudinal barriers to clinical trials participation. Results of a factor analysis did not confirm the presence of the proposed four attitudinal barriers subscale/factors. Rather, a single factor represented the best fit to the data. The most highly-rated barriers were fear of side-effects, worry about health insurance and efficacy concerns. Results suggested that less educated patients, patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with no previous oncology clinical trial participation, and patients reporting greater perceived financial burden from cancer care were associated with higher barriers. These patients may need extra attention in terms of decisional support. Overall, patients with fewer personal resources (education, financial issues) report more attitudinal barriers and should be targeted for additional decisional support.

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.

Attitudes of patients with metastatic breast cancer toward research biopsies

BACKGROUND

Research studies involving human tissue are increasingly common. However, patients' attitudes toward research biopsies are not well characterized, particularly when the biopsies are carried out outside the context of therapeutic trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from two academic (n = 80) and two community (n = 80) hospitals completed a 29-item self-administered survey to evaluate their willingness to consider providing research purposes only biopsies (RPOBs) (as a stand-alone procedure) and additional biopsies (ABs) (additional needle passes at the time of a clinically indicated biopsy).

RESULTS

Eighty-two (51%) of 160 patients would consider having RPOBs, of which 42 (53%) and 40 (50%) patients were from academic and community hospitals, respectively. Patients who had more prior biopsies were less likely to consider RPOBs (RR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4-1.0, P = 0.03). Of 160 patients, 115 (72%) patients would consider having ABs. Of these, 64 (80%) and 51 (64%) patients from academic and community hospitals, respectively, would consider ABs (RR = 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0-1.5, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with MBC in both academic and community settings report willingness to consider undergoing biopsies for research. Further research is needed to understand ethical, logistical and provider-based barriers to broader participation in such studies.

A comparison of patient knowledge of clinical trials and trialist priorities

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to clinical trials remains poor, and patient knowledge of clinical trials is one barrier to recruitment. To identify knowledge deficits, we conducted and compared surveys measuring actual patient knowledge and clinical trialist priorities for patient knowledge.

METHODS

Consenting patients at a tertiary cancer centre answered a survey that included 2 opinion questions about their own knowledge and willingness to join a trial, and22 knowledge questions. Clinical researchers at the centre were asked 13 questions about the importance of various trials factors.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients surveyed, 16% had joined a clinical trial, and 42% had a secondary school education or less. The mean correct response rate on the knowledge questions was 58%. Higher rates of correct responses were associated with lower age (p = 0.05), greater education (p = 0.006), prior trial participation (p < 0.001), agreement or strong agreement with perceived understanding of trials (p < 0.001), and willingness to join a clinical trial (p = 0.002). Trialists valued an understanding of the rationale for clinical trials and of randomization, placebo, and patient protection, but those particular topics were poorly understood by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient knowledge about clinical trials is poor, including knowledge of several concepts ranked important by clinical trialists. The findings suggest that when developing education interventions, emphasis should be placed on the topics most directly related to patient care, and factors such as age and education level should be considered.

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.

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation

PURPOSE

Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation

PURPOSE

Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations.

METHODS

Data were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race.

RESULTS

African-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)).

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancer patients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.

A 2-stage phase II design with direct assignment option in stage II for initial marker validation

Biomarkers are critical to targeted therapies, as they may identify patients more likely to benefit from a treatment. Several prospective designs for biomarker-directed therapy have been previously proposed, differing primarily in the study population, randomization scheme, or both. Recognizing the need for randomization, yet acknowledging the possibility of promising but inconclusive results after a stage I cohort of randomized patients, we propose a 2-stage phase II design on marker-positive patients that allows for direct assignment in a stage II cohort. In stage I, marker-positive patients are equally randomized to receive experimental treatment or control. Stage II has the option to adopt "direct assignment" whereby all patients receive experimental treatment. Through simulation, we studied the power and type I error rate of our design compared with a balanced randomized two-stage design, and conducted sensitivity analyses to study the effect of timing of stage I analysis, population shift effects, and unbalanced randomization. Our proposed design has minimal loss in power (<1.8%) and increased type I error rate (<2.1%) compared with a balanced randomized design. The maximum increase in type I error rate in the presence of a population shift was between 3.1% and 5%, and the loss in power across possible timings of stage I analysis was less than 1.2%. Our proposed design has desirable statistical properties with potential appeal in practice. The direct assignment option, if adopted, provides for an "extended confirmation phase" as an alternative to stopping the trial early for evidence of efficacy in stage I.

Development of a cancer clinical trials multi-media intervention: clinical trials: are they right for you?

OBJECTIVE

To describe processes used to develop a multi-media psycho-educational intervention to prepare patients for a discussion about cancer clinical trials (CTs).

METHODS

Guided by a Steering Committee, formative research was conducted to develop an informative and engaging tool about cancer CTs. Twenty-three patients and caregivers participated in formative in-depth interviews to elicit information about perceptions of cancer CTs to inform production of a new media product.

RESULTS

Formative research revealed participants had concerns about experimentation, held beliefs that cancer CTs were for patients who had no other treatment options, and wanted a balance of information about pros and cons of CT participation. The value of physicians as credible spokespersons and the use of patients as role-models were supported. Using iterative processes, the production team infused the results into creation of a multimedia psycho-educational intervention titled Clinical Trials: Are they Right for You?

CONCLUSION

An intervention, developed through an iterative consumer-focused process involving multiple stakeholders and formative research, may result in an engaging informative product.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

If found to be efficacious, Clinical Trials: Are they Right for You? is a low-cost and easily disseminated multimedia psycho-educational intervention to assist cancer patients with making an informed decision about cancer CTs.

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.

The relationships among knowledge, self-efficacy, preparedness, decisional conflict, and decisions to participate in a cancer clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are important tools in the development of improved cancer therapies; yet, participation is low. Key psychosocial barriers exist that appear to impact a patient's decision to participate. Little is known about the relationship among knowledge, self-efficacy, preparation, decisional conflict, and patient decisions to take part in CCTs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine if preparation for consideration of a CCT as a treatment option mediates the relationship between knowledge, self-efficacy, and decisional conflict. We also explored whether lower levels of decisional conflict are associated with greater likelihood of CCT enrollment.

METHOD

In a pre-post test intervention study, cancer patients (N = 105) were recruited before their initial consultation with a medical oncologist. A brief educational intervention was provided for all patients. Patient self-report survey responses assessed knowledge, self-efficacy, preparation for clinical trial participation, decisional conflict, and clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

Preparation was found to mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and decisional conflict (p = 0.003 for a test of the indirect mediational pathway for the decisional conflict total score). Preparation had a more limited role in mediating the effect of knowledge on decisional conflict. Further, preliminary evidence indicated that reduced decisional conflict was associated with increased clinical trial enrollment (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

When patients feel greater CCT self-efficacy and have more knowledge, they feel more prepared to make a CCT decision. Reduced decisional conflict, in turn, is associated with the decision to enroll in a clinical trial. Our results suggest that preparation for decision-making should be a target of future interventions to improve participation in CCTs.

Training community health workers about cancer clinical trials

Innovative projects to reduce disparities in cancer treatment and research include partnerships between academic and community cancer centers, patient navigation programs and strategies to promote community awareness, education and engagement. A 4 h training program about cancer clinical trials was developed through a needs assessment and in collaboration with community health workers who served as consultants and a larger advisory board comprised of community health workers, educators and clinical trialists. This program was delivered first as a collaboration between a phsycian who is experienced in the conduct of clinical research and two community health workers, and subsequently by the community health workers alone. We report on four workshops attended by a total of 61 community health workers recruited from Boston-area hospitals, community health centers and outreach programs. Support for and knowledge of clinical trials was measured in a pretest and post-test, which also included a satisfaction rating. Participants had a range of prior experience with clinical trials in the context of their personal and professional experience. Mean accuracy of knowledge about clinical trials increased from 72 to 84%, support for clinical trials improved considerably, and satisfaction with the training experience was high. Knowledge gaps and low levels of support for cancer clinical trials among community health workers can be improved with a short training program delivered by other community health workers. Further research is needed to identify the impact of this training on accrual to cancer clinical trials.

Research information knowledge, perceived adequacy, and understanding in cancer clinical trial participants

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe the adequacy of research information among people with cancer at the time they accept or decline participation in a cancer clinical trial.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, descriptive.

SETTING

An urban, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center.

SAMPLE

197 patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer.

METHODS

Mailed survey; self-reported data.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Adequacy of research information (actual knowledge, perceived adequacy of information, and perceived understanding), cancer clinical trial participation, and satisfaction with the decision to participate.

FINDINGS

Most respondents (88%) perceived themselves as having adequate information to make an informed decision regarding cancer clinical trial participation. In addition, 35% demonstrated adequate knowledge of basic clinical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients decide to accept or decline cancer clinical trials without having adequate knowledge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses have an important role in educating patients regarding cancer clinical trials. The ideal teachable moment may not occur at the time of diagnosis; other less stressful opportunities may present when the patient is more receptive.

Physician-related factors involved in patient decisions to enroll onto cancer clinical trials

The development of new cancer therapies requires additional, and more complex, clinical trials. But only approximately 3% to 5% of adult cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials. This study seeks to identify and understand the attitudes of the public and cancer survivors toward health-related decisions and cancer clinical trials to identify the key factors that must be addressed to increase that percentage.

Identifying patient information needs about cancer clinical trials using a Question Prompt List

OBJECTIVE

Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) have demonstrated significant promise in facilitating communication in general, surgical and palliative oncology settings yet have not been tested in the oncology clinical trial setting. We aimed to develop a targeted QPL for Clinical Trials (QPL-CT).

METHODS

Breast, lung, and genitourinary cancer patients who either had (trial experienced) or had not (trial naive) participated in a clinical trial joined focus groups to help develop and explore the acceptability of a QPL-CT. Clinicians also participated in separated focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. We explored patients' trial information needs and views about the utility of the QPL-CT.

RESULTS

Patients focused on four trial information needs: understanding foundational information, conflict of interest issues and financial implications of trial participation. Of note, experienced patients need to personalize foundational information.

CONCLUSION

Patient information needs varied considerably and were influenced by trial experience. Patients valued the QPL-CT as an aid to gathering new trial information and ensuring that their information needs were met.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians need to carefully elicit patient information needs and tailor trial information to meet these needs. The QPL-CT, may be of great benefit during clinical trial discussions.

The influence of travel time on breast cancer characteristics, receipt of primary therapy, and surveillance mammography

Travel time has been shown to influence some aspects of cancer characteristics at diagnosis and care for women with breast cancer, but important gaps remain in our understanding of its impact. We examined the influence of travel time to the nearest radiology facility on breast cancer characteristics, treatment, and surveillance for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. We included 1,012 women with invasive breast cancer (stages I and II) who had access to care within an integrated health care delivery system in western Washington State. The travel times to the nearest radiology facility were calculated for all the U.S. Census blocks within the study area and assigned to women based on residence at diagnosis. We collected cancer characteristics, primary and adjuvant therapies, and surveillance mammography for at least 2.5 years post diagnosis and used multivariable analyses to test the associations of travel time. The majority of women (68.6%) lived within 20 min of the nearest radiology facility, had stage I disease (72.7%), received breast conserving therapy (68.7%), and had annual surveillance mammography the first 2 years after treatment (73.7%). The travel time was not significantly associated with the stage or surveillance mammography after adjusting for covariates. Primary therapy was significantly related to travel time, with greater travel time (>30 min vs. ≤ 10 min) associated with a higher likelihood of mastectomy compared to breast conserving surgery (RR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.01). The travel time was not associated with the stage at diagnosis or surveillance mammography receipt. The travel time does seem to influence the type of primary therapy among women with breast cancer, suggesting that women may prefer low frequency services, such as mastectomy, if geographic access to a radiology facility is limited.

Recommendations for enhancing clinical trials education: a review of the literature

This study aims to apply the evidence-based practice (EBP) process to determine the factors that influence patients' understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with clinical trials, the informed consent process, and treatment decisions and to make recommendations for improving clinical trials education. Beginning with evidence retrieval, the authors identified key search terms and searched MEDLINE--Ovid, MEDLINE--PubMed, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify articles published between July 2001 and July 2006 that highlighted clinical trials education. The articles were reviewed for clinical trials patient education information, clinician methods of communicating clinical trial information to patients, and patient satisfaction with the clinical trials process, including the informed consent process. As a result, practice changes were recommended for the patient/family, staff/community, and institution. From the literature review, 81 articles were identified. Recurring themes included decision-making, patient education, staff education, and pediatrics. Most articles focused on methods and strategies aimed at improving education at the patient/family, staff/community, and institutional levels. The issues surrounding clinical trial education are complex due to multiple variables interfering with poor patient understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with clinical trial treatment decisions. On the basis of our findings, we recommend that clinicians involved in educating patients, families, staff, and communities about clinical trials have an awareness of and understanding for very complex issues.

Community health workers' support for cancer clinical trials: description and explanation

Ethnic differences in participation in cancer clinical trials slow advances in medical knowledge that can reduce health care disparities. Community health workers (CHWs) are an increasingly important bridge between the health care system and underserved communities and could play an important role in increasing rates of clinical trial participation. We investigated community health workers' orientations to medical research and cancer clinical trials with a mixed methods design: two focus groups, 11 intensive interviews, and a structured survey of 76 CHW training workshop participants. CHWs demonstrated high levels of commitment to improving the health of community members but considerable distrust of researchers' motives, low levels of knowledge about cancer clinical trials, and frequent perceptions of bias in the health care system. Support for research is associated with more research experience, self-assessed knowledge, and Hispanic ethnicity, but with less seniority as a CHW. Neither actual knowledge of cancer clinical trials nor perceptions of bias in the health care system were related to degree of support for medical research. Community health workers perceive bias in the health care system but recognize the importance of medical research and are interested in learning more about cancer clinical trials. Research experience increases support for medical research; education increases perceptions of health care system bias.

Recruitment and retention of patients into emergency medicine clinical trials

The emergency medicine (EM) and prehospital environments are unlike any other clinical environments and require special consideration to allow the successful implementation of clinical trials. This article reviews the specific issues involved in EM clinical trials and provides strategies from EM and non-EM trials to maximize recruitment and retention. While the evidence supporting some of these strategies is deficient, addressing recruitment and retention issues with specific strategies will help researchers deal with these issues in their funding applications and in turn develop the necessary infrastructure to participate in EM clinical trials.

Enhancing decision making about participation in cancer clinical trials: development of a question prompt list

PURPOSE

Slow accrual to cancer clinical trials impedes the progress of effective new cancer treatments. Poor physician-patient communication has been identified as a key contributor to low trial accrual. Question prompt lists (QPLs) have demonstrated a significant promise in facilitating communication in general, surgical, and palliative oncology settings. These simple patient interventions have not been tested in the oncology clinical trial setting. We aimed to develop a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT).

METHOD

Lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients who either had (trial experienced) or had not (trial naive) participated in a clinical trial were invited to join focus groups to help develop and explore the acceptability of a QPL-CT. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. A research team, including a qualitative data expert, analyzed these data to explore patients' decision-making processes and views about the utility of the QPL-CT prompt to aid in trial decision making.

RESULTS

Decision making was influenced by the outcome of patients' comparative assessment of perceived risks versus benefits of a trial, and the level of trust patients had in their doctors' recommendation about the trial. Severity of a patient's disease influenced trial decision making only for trial-naive patients.

CONCLUSION

Although patients were likely to prefer a paternalistic decision-making style, they expressed valuation of the QPL as an aid to decision making. QPL-CT utility extended beyond the actual consultation to include roles both before and after the clinical trial discussion.

Motivation for health information seeking and processing about clinical trial enrollment

Low patient accrual in clinical trials poses serious concerns for the advancement of medical science in the United States. Past research has identified health communication as a crucial step in overcoming barriers to enrollment. However, few communication scholars have studied this problem from a sociopsychological perspective to understand what motivates people to look for or pay attention to information about clinical trial enrollment. This study applies the model of Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) to this context of health decision making. By recognizing the uncertainties embedded in clinical trials, we view clinical trial enrollment as a case study of risk. With data from a random-digit-dial telephone survey of 500 adults living in the United States, we used structural equation modeling to test the central part of the RISP model. In particular, we examined the role of optimistic feelings, as a type of positive affect, in motivating information seeking and processing. Our results indicated that rather than exerting an indirect influence on information seeking through motivating a psychological need for more information, optimistic feelings have more direct relationships with information seeking and processing. Similarly, informational subjective norms also exhibit a more direct relationship with information seeking and processing. These results suggest merit in applying the RISP model to study health decision making related to clinical trial enrollment. Our findings also render practical implications on how to improve communication about clinical trial enrollment.

What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies

Background

With the globalization of clinical trials, large developing nations have substantially increased their participation in multi-site studies. This participation has raised ethical concerns, among them the fear that local customs, habits and culture are not respected while asking potential participants to take part in study. This knowledge gap is particularly noticeable among Indian subjects, since despite the large number of participants, little is known regarding what factors affect their willingness to participate in clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies evaluating the factors and barriers, from the perspective of potential Indian participants, contributing to their participation in clinical trials. We searched both international as well as Indian-specific bibliographic databases, including Pubmed, Cochrane, Openjgate, MedInd, Scirus and Medknow, also performing hand searches and communicating with authors to obtain additional references. We enrolled studies dealing exclusively with the participation of Indians in clinical trials. Data extraction was conducted by three researchers, with disagreement being resolved by consensus.

Results

Six qualitative studies and one survey were found evaluating the main themes affecting the participation of Indian subjects. Themes included Personal health benefits, Altruism, Trust in physicians, Source of extra income, Detailed knowledge, Methods for motivating participants as factors favoring, while Mistrust on trial organizations, Concerns about efficacy and safety of trials, Psychological reasons, Trial burden, Loss of confidentiality, Dependency issues, Language as the barriers.

Conclusion

We identified factors that facilitated and barriers that have negative implications on trial participation decisions in Indian subjects. Due consideration and weightage should be assigned to these factors while planning future trials in India.

From information processing to behavioral intentions: exploring cancer patients' motivations for clinical trial enrollment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cancer patients' motivations for clinical trial enrollment, this study tests the proposition that a model of Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) could serve as an antecedent to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

METHODS

With data from a telephone survey, we examined whether components of the RISP model had significant impact on belief-based attitudes and behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

Risk judgment and affective responses, especially optimistic feelings, consistently related to attitudes and behavioral intentions. Trust in doctors also significantly related to our respondents' positive attitudes toward clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The RISP model might have more constrained applicability as compared to the TPB in explaining cancer patients' motivations for clinical trial enrollment. However, certain components of the RISP model seemed to contribute to our respondents' attitude formation as interesting additions to the TPB.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Communication about clinical trials is a balance act between providing sufficient information about the potential risks and benefits involved in a clinical trial and managing emotional responses that cancer patients associate with participation. Both acts contribute to the formation of positive attitudes toward clinical trials among cancer patients, which is the driving force behind their intentions for clinical trial enrollment.

Seeking informed consent to Phase I cancer clinical trials: identifying oncologists' communication strategies

PURPOSE

Phase I clinical trials are the gateway to effective new cancer treatments. Many physicians have difficulty when discussing Phase I clinical trials. Research demonstrates evidence of suboptimal communication. Little is known about communication strategies used by oncologists when recruiting patients for Phase I trials. We analyzed audio recorded Phase I consultations to identify oncologists' communication strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects were consecutive cancer patients from six medical oncologists attending one of three outpatient clinics at a major Cancer Center in the United States. Sixteen patients signed informed consent for audio recording of their consultations in which a Phase I study was discussed. These were transcribed in full and analyzed to identify communication strategies.

RESULTS

Six communication themes emerged from the analysis: (1) orienting, (2) educating patients, (3) describing uncertainty and prognosis, (4) persuading, (5) decision making, and (6) making a treatment recommendation. As expected, although there was some common ground between communication in Phase I and the Phase II and III settings, there were distinct differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists used persuasive communication, made explicit recommendations, or implicitly expressed a treatment preference and were choice limiting. This highlights the complexity of discussing Phase I trials and the need to develop strategies to aid oncologists and patients in these difficult conversations. Patient centered communication that values patient preferences while preserving the oncologist's agenda can be a helpful approach to these discussions.

Automated matching software for clinical trials eligibility: measuring efficiency and flexibility

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials (CT) serve as the media that translates clinical research into standards of care. Low or slow recruitment leads to delays in delivery of new therapies to the public. Determination of eligibility in all patients is one of the most important factors to assure unbiased results from the clinical trials process and represents the first step in addressing the issue of under representation and equal access to clinical trials.

METHODS

This is a pilot project evaluating the efficiency, flexibility, and generalizibility of an automated clinical trials eligibility screening tool across 5 different clinical trials and clinical trial scenarios.

RESULTS

There was a substantial total savings during the study period in research staff time spent in evaluating patients for eligibility ranging from 165h to 1329h. There was a marked enhancement in efficiency with the automated system for all but one study in the pilot. The ratio of mean staff time required per eligible patient identified ranged from 0.8 to 19.4 for the manual versus the automated process.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that automation offers an opportunity to reduce the burden of the manual processes required for CT eligibility screening and to assure that all patients have an opportunity to be evaluated for participation in clinical trials as appropriate. The automated process greatly reduces the time spent on eligibility screening compared with the traditional manual process by effectively transferring the load of the eligibility assessment process to the computer.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of underserved women in the rural South toward breast cancer prevention and detection

The goal of this study was to understand the unique needs and barriers to breast cancer control among African American women in the rural South. This population experiences barriers that surpass that of other minorities. Researchers conducted 6 focus groups to assess barriers of minority women in Mississippi toward breast cancer prevention and clinical trials. These women had little knowledge of treatment options and negative perceptions of screening and clinical trial participation. This research equips others to identify new health education strategies. Conclusions also provide insight into prevention for other minority populations, such as Latina, Asian, and American Indian women.

Recruitment of minority and underserved populations in the United States: the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities experience

OBJECTIVE

The recruitment of minority and underserved individuals to research studies is often problematic. The purpose of this study was to describe the recruitment experiences of projects that actively recruited minority and underserved populations as part of The Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD) initiative.

METHODS

Principal investigators and research staff from 17 research projects at eight institutions across the United States were surveyed about their recruitment experiences. Investigators reported the study purpose and design, recruitment methods employed, recruitment progress, problems or challenges to recruitment, strategies used to address these problems, and difficulties resulting from Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requirements. Additionally, information was collected about participant burden and compensation. Burden was classified on a three-level scale. Recruitment results were reported as of March 31, 2007.

RESULTS

Recruitment attainment ranged from 52% to 184% of the participant recruitment goals. Commonly reported recruitment problems included administrative issues, and difficulties with establishing community partnerships and contacting potential participants. Long study questionnaires, extended follow-up, and narrow eligibility criteria were also problematic. The majority of projects reported difficulties with IRB approvals, though few reported issues related to HIPAA requirements. Attempted solutions to recruitment problems varied across Centers and included using multiple recruitment sites and sources and culturally appropriate invitations to participate. Participant burden and compensation varied widely across the projects, however, accrual appeared to be inversely associated with the amount of participant burden for each project.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment of minority and underserved populations to clinical trials is necessary to increase study generalizbility and reduce health disparities. Our results demonstrate the importance of flexible study designs which allow adaptation to recruitment challenges. These experiences also highlight the importance of involving community members and reducing participant burden to achieve success in recruiting individuals from minority and underserved populations.