Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials

Psychosocial Interventions for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Families

Few randomized controlled trials of family-based psychosocial interventions involving patients and at least one other family member have been conducted in the context of advanced cancer. Moreover, existing interventions have largely been stand-alone programs that have not been well integrated into routine palliative and clinical care. Programs that address this gap may not only improve patient and caregiver quality of life (QOL) but also the quality of palliative and supportive care services. The aim of this narrative review is to describe published interventions that have attempted to improve the QOL of advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers (eg, spouses, partners, and other family members) and to describe some of the challenges that make it difficult to implement such programs in clinical settings. Toward that end, the added value that family-based psychosocial interventions can bring to advanced cancer care is first described. Next, the literature on family-based interventions in advanced cancer is reviewed, and different theoretical approaches and outcomes are highlighted. This is followed by a description of some of the health system barriers to supportive family care in advanced cancer care. The article concludes with a synthesis of research findings and proposes directions for future research.

What do people really know and think about clinical trials? A comparison of rural and urban communities in the South

Clinical trials (CTs) have the potential to provide the most advanced medical treatments and screening options and help medically underserved individuals, including those in rural communities, obtain the medical care they need. Despite the need for access to care, CT participation remains low in rural communities. This study examined what individuals in both rural and urban communities of a Southeastern state know and think about CTs. Nineteen focus groups and eight interviews were conducted statewide with a total of 212 men and women. Discussions assessed participants' beliefs, perceptions, and sources of information about CTs, and their willingness to participate in a CT. Focus group and interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively for themes. Urban and rural participants expressed similar beliefs about CTs. Common misperceptions were that CTs were intended for people who could not afford care and that completing a survey or participating in a focus group constituted a CT. Rural residents believed that CTs involved deception more often than urban residents, and they were less willing than urban residents to participate in a CT in the future. Urban residents more frequently discussed their distrust of the medical system as a reason for not wanting to participate. Many individuals expressed that their participation would depend on whether their doctor recommended it or whether the trial would benefit a family member's health. Findings have important implications for health communication. Messages should be developed to address misperceptions of rural and urban communities and convey the importance of CT participation to promote and protect the health of their communities.

State-of-the-science of patient navigation as a strategy for enhancing minority clinical trial accrual

BACKGROUND

Patient navigation programs are emerging that aim to address disparities in clinical trial participation among medically underserved populations, including racial/ethnic minorities. However, there is a lack of consensus on the role of patient navigators within the clinical trial process as well as outcome measures to evaluate program effectiveness.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted of PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, and other sources to identify qualitative and quantitative studies on patient navigation in clinical trials. The search yielded 212 studies, of which only 12 were eligible for this review.

RESULTS

The eligible studies reported on the development of programs for patient navigation in cancer clinical trials, including training and implementation among African Americans, American Indians, and Native Hawaiians. A low rate of clinical trial refusal (range, 4%-6%) was reported among patients enrolled in patient navigation programs. However, few studies reported on the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing clinical treatment trial enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures are proposed to assist in developing and evaluating the efficacy and/or effectiveness of patient navigation programs that aim to increase participation in cancer clinical trials. Future research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of patient navigators in addressing barriers to clinical trial participation and increasing enrollment among medically underserved cancer patients.

A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to increase participation in a study of colorectal screening and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Recruiting cancer patients is a barrier often encountered in research trials. However, very few randomized trials explore strategies to improve participation rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to recruit persons diagnosed with colorectal cancer for a research trial.

METHODS

Potentially eligible participants were identified by the Victorian Cancer Registry. A total of 1,062 participants were randomized to receive either a mailed explanatory primer letter designed to encourage research participation, or no primer letter. Two weeks after the intervention, the Victorian Cancer Registry sought permission from patients to release their contact details to researchers. Those who agreed were contacted and invited to the study.

RESULTS

Pre-recruitment encouragement was not effective at increasing recruitment, with no significant differences demonstrated between experimental groups. Overall, 40% (n = 425) consented to participate, 25% (n = 243) refused and 35% (n = 394) did not respond.

CONCLUSIONS

While this study demonstrated disappointing outcomes, pre-recruitment letters should not be ruled out as an approach altogether. Rather, future research should explore whether other factors to increase motivation, such as intensity and timing, are feasible and acceptable for contacting cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12609000628246.

A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to increase participation in a study of colorectal screening and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Recruiting cancer patients is a barrier often encountered in research trials. However, very few randomized trials explore strategies to improve participation rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to recruit persons diagnosed with colorectal cancer for a research trial.

METHODS

Potentially eligible participants were identified by the Victorian Cancer Registry. A total of 1,062 participants were randomized to receive either a mailed explanatory primer letter designed to encourage research participation, or no primer letter. Two weeks after the intervention, the Victorian Cancer Registry sought permission from patients to release their contact details to researchers. Those who agreed were contacted and invited to the study.

RESULTS

Pre-recruitment encouragement was not effective at increasing recruitment, with no significant differences demonstrated between experimental groups. Overall, 40% (n = 425) consented to participate, 25% (n = 243) refused and 35% (n = 394) did not respond.

CONCLUSIONS

While this study demonstrated disappointing outcomes, pre-recruitment letters should not be ruled out as an approach altogether. Rather, future research should explore whether other factors to increase motivation, such as intensity and timing, are feasible and acceptable for contacting cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12609000628246.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual

PURPOSE

Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers.

CONCLUSION

Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

Feasibility, acceptability and findings from a pilot randomized controlled intervention study on the impact of a book designed to inform patients about cancer clinical trials

This study was conducted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and changes in knowledge among cancer patients assigned to receive a 160-page book on experimental cancer therapies and clinical trials. We enrolled 20 patients with cancer who had never participated in a clinical trial and randomly assigned them to receive the book either during week 1 or week 4 of the study. We collected baseline patient demographic and cancer-related information as well as knowledge about cancer clinical trials at week 0. Follow-up surveys were administered at weeks 3 and 6 for both study groups. Comparisons were made within and between groups randomized to receive the book early (at week 1) to those who received it later (at week 4). One hundred percent of data were captured in both groups at baseline, which decreased to 77.8% by week 6. The vast majority of participants found the book moderately or very useful (89% in the Early Group at week 3 and 95.5% in the Late Group at week 6). Within group pairwise comparisons found significant difference between baseline and week 6 in content-specific knowledge scores among participants in the Late Group [79% versus 92.1%, p = 0.01). Global knowledge scores increased significantly for variables reflecting knowledge that promotes decisions to participate in clinical trials. Providing published reading material to patients with cancer is both feasible and acceptable. Offering information to patients about cancer clinical trials, using a book designed for patients with cancer may influence knowledge related to decision to participate in clinical trials.

Attitudes Toward Cancer Clinical Trial Participation in Young Adults with a History of Cancer and a Healthy College Student Sample: A Preliminary Investigation

Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15-39 at diagnosis have very low cancer clinical trial accrual rates. To date, no studies have examined attitudes toward clinical trial participation in this age range to determine if certain individuals are less likely to enroll if offered participation. The current study assessed attitudes toward participation using the Cancer Treatment Subscale of the Attitudes toward Cancer Trials Scales. Methods: Data were collected from a sample of leukemia and lymphoma survivors (n=99) and a healthy college student sample (n=397). Following a principal components analysis, two subscales-Personal Barriers/Safety and Personal Benefits-were retained for analysis. Results: In the cancer survivor group, only 14 (13.3%) reported being offered participation in a cancer clinical trial, and only 8 of those 14 (7.6% of survivors) participated. Responses from leukemia and lymphoma survivors revealed no significant relationships between age, gender, race/ethnicity, clinical trial participation, insurance status, or social class with Personal Benefits or Personal Barriers/Safety. Healthy college females had more negative Personal Barriers/Safety attitudes compared to males after adjusting for race/ethnicity and social class (p=0.01), but no associations were present when examining Personal Benefits as an outcome. Conclusion: This preliminary investigation suggests that drivers of attitudes toward clinical trial participation in AYAs are not well understood and may impact cancer trial participation. Future work should focus on defining attitudes toward cancer clinical trials in the AYA population and developing interventions to increase awareness, knowledge, and positive attitudes toward participating in cancer research.

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.

Attitudes and barriers towards participation in an acupuncture trial among breast cancer patients: a survey study

Background

As breast cancer patients increasingly use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), clinical trials are needed to guide appropriate clinical use. We sought to identify socio-demographic, clinical and psychological factors related to willingness to participate (WTP) and to determine barriers to participation in an acupuncture clinical trial among breast cancer patients.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study among post-menopausal women with stage I-III breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors at an urban academic cancer center.

Results

Of the 300 participants (92% response rate), 148 (49.8%) reported WTP in an acupuncture clinical trial. Higher education (p = 0.001), increased acupuncture expectancy (p < 0.001), and previous radiation therapy (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with WTP. Travel difficulty (p = 0.002), concern with experimentation (p = 0.013), and lack of interest in acupuncture (p < 0.001) were significant barriers to WTP. Barriers differed significantly by socio-demographic factors with white people more likely to endorse travel difficulty (p = 0.018) and non-white people more likely to report concern with experimentation (p = 0.024). Older patients and those with lower education were more likely to report concern with experimentation and lack of interest in acupuncture (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Although nearly half of the respondents reported WTP, significant barriers to participation exist and differ among subgroups. Research addressing these barriers is needed to ensure effective accrual and improve the representation of individuals from diverse backgrounds.

Responses to a theoretically adapted clinical trial education session: faith-based sites versus rural work site dissemination

The process for advancing biomedical knowledge depends upon recruiting an adequate and representative sample of individuals to voluntarily participate in research studies. A consistent personal barrier to cancer clinical trial participation is the lack of awareness and understanding related to trial availability, and the prevention and treatment roles participation represents. In particular, comprehensive community-based approaches to recruit and educate rural residents are needed. Moreover, consistent under representation of priority populations should be addressed with innovative outreach to collaborate in identifying culturally meaningful approaches. A theoretically adapted version of a component of the National Cancer Institute's "Clinical Trial Education Series" was assessed via educational sessions delivered through work sites and churches. From eight focus groups with 90 participants, we found that church leaders, congregants, and community members were receptive to education on cancer research, increased their short-term knowledge about it, and intent to participate in cancer studies, decreased their current anxiety about clinical trials participation, and provided specific suggestions for further adapting the educational session to be even more culturally relevant. These outcomes provide evidence to support the effectiveness of future customized recruitment strategies embedded within a community or faith-based environment that may increase knowledge, decrease anxiety and intent to actual participation in cancer studies, as well as impact study representativeness and address causes of health disparities.

Effect of medical oncologists' attitudes on accrual to clinical trials in a community setting

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials (OCTs) are crucial in evaluating new cancer treatments, but only 2% to 3% of US adult patients with cancer enter OCTs. This study assessed barriers to participation in clinical trials among oncologists in a large integrated health care delivery system with an active clinical trials program. Although many studies have identified major physician barriers to enrollment, few have examined how these barriers affect actual trial accrual.

METHODS

Using information from a mailed survey, we examined the effect of oncologists' attitudes, beliefs, experiences, sociodemographic factors, and practice characteristics on clinical trial accrual in the 2 years following the survey. We identified relationships between these variables and subsequent clinical trial accrual using correlations and mixed effects models.

RESULTS

A construct combining questions that assessed oncologist attitudes, beliefs, and experiences substantially influenced OCT enrollment (r = .51; P < .0001). This construct included awareness of open clinical trials and specific eligible patients, as well as the practice of initiating a discussion about OCTs with most eligible patients. This broad concept of awareness had the greatest correlation with enrollment and mediated the effect on enrollment of other values and beliefs, such as welcoming a patient's initiation of a trial discussion and valuing the support of research nurses and coordinators.

CONCLUSION

Even in a health care setting with an active clinical trials program, substantial research personnel, infrastructure support, and widespread access to trials among oncologists and patients, oncologists' participation remains quite variable. Oncologist values, beliefs, and awareness of clinical trials play an important role in OCT accrual.

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.

What are the attitudes of strictly-orthodox Jews to clinical trials: are they influenced by Jewish teachings?

In order to explore whether and how Jewish teachings influence the attitudes of strictly-orthodox Jews to clinical trials, 10 strictly-orthodox Jews were purposively selected and interviewed, using a semi-structured schedule. Relevant literature was searched for similar studies and for publications covering relevant Jewish teachings. Thematic analysis was used to analyse transcribed interviews and explore relationships between attitudes and Jewish teachings identified in the review. Participants' attitudes were influenced in a variety of ways: by Jewish teachings on the over-riding importance of preserving life--the need to avoid risks affecting life and health, while taking risks to preserve life--and the religious obligation to help others, as well as by previous experience. Attitudes mirrored those in the general population, enabling many participants to reach conclusions that did not differ materially from those of the general population or research ethics committees.

Are clinical trials dealing with severe infection fitting routine practices? Insights from a large registry

Introduction

Guidelines dealing with severe sepsis and septic shock mostly rely on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure the best standards of care for patients. However, patients included in high-quality studies may differ from the routine population and alter external validity of recommendations. We aimed to determine to what extent non-inclusion criteria of RCTs dealing with severe sepsis and septic shock may affect application of their conclusions in routine care.

Methods

In a first step, the MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs treating severe sepsis and septic shock patients between 1992 and 2008, and non-inclusion criteria for these studies were abstracted. Two reviewers independently evaluated the articles, which were checked by a third reviewer. We extracted data on the study design, main intervention, primary endpoint, criteria for inclusion, and criteria for non-inclusion. In a second step, the distribution of the non-inclusion criteria was observed in a prospective multicenter cohort of severe sepsis and septic shock patients (Cub-Rea network, 1992 to 2008).

Results

We identified 96 articles out of 7,012 citations that met the screening criteria. Congestive heart failure (35%) and cancer (30%) were frequent exclusion criteria in selected studies, as well as other frequent disorders such as gastrointestinal and liver diseases and all causes of immune suppression. Of the 67,717 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the Cub-Rea database, 40,325 (60%) experienced at least one of the main exclusion criteria, including 11% of congestive heart failure patients and 11% of cancer patients. In addition, we observed a significant trend for increasing number of patients with these criteria along time.

Conclusion

Current exclusion criteria for RCTs dealing with severe sepsis and septic shock excluded most patients encountered in daily practice and limit external validity of the results of high-quality studies.

Screening intervention to identify eligible patients and improve accrual to phase II-IV oncology clinical trials

PURPOSE

Low enrolment rates in clinical trials present a barrier to the development of novel cancer therapies. Currently, only 3% of patients with cancer participate, and many studies fail to achieve necessary enrolment. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a screening intervention to identify potentially eligible patients (PEPs) would increase accrual rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a 4-month intervention period, PEPs for 21 phase II-IV breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology, and lung cancer trials were identified by a screening coordinator. This individual reviewed the electronic medical records of patients attending outpatient clinics and flagged PEPs for 10 medical oncologists at the BC Cancer Agency. Patients who were already documented to be trial eligible by physicians were not flagged. Oncologists were surveyed regarding the helpfulness and accuracy of the intervention.

RESULTS

During the intervention period, 73 patients were enrolled, compared with 61 patients enrolled in the 4 months prior and 51 patients in the 4 months after. A total of 2,098 charts were reviewed, and 120 PEPs were identified during the intervention period, resulting in 19 PEPs who enrolled and four PEPs who declined a clinical trial. Relative accrual rates adjusted for oncologist appointments were 0.85 (P = .15) before and 0.70 (P < .005) after, relative to the intervention period. Oncologist-returned surveys indicated that 67% of flags were helpful, and 70% were accurate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, manually screening patient records increased enrolment to specific clinical trials. A screening intervention process, involving a dedicated screening coordinator, should be considered to improve clinical trial accrual.

Recruitment and retention strategies of African American and Latina American breast cancer survivors in a longitudinal psycho-oncology study

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe recruitment and retention strategies of a psychosocial intervention with African American and Latina American breast cancer survivors (BCSs).

DESIGN

Prospective design with pre- and post-testing.

SETTING

A mailed survey and assignment to telephone counseling or education booklet only.

SAMPLE

587 African American and Latina American BCSs were recruited.

METHODS

The sample was drawn from the population-based California cancer and hospital registries, as well as community agencies. Mailed self-report health-related quality-of-life assessments were at baseline and 4-6 months follow-up.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Accrual outcomes; recruitment and retention strategies.

FINDINGS

A total of 375 (64%) completed the baseline survey and 320 (55%) completed both baseline and follow-up assessments. The recruitment outcomes suggest that very special attention must be paid to the initial recruitment of Latina Americans to engage their interest and participation. For African Americans, particular attention must be devoted to their retention to address potential attrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the inclusion of lower-income and ethnic minority cancer survivors in a longitudinal intervention study is doable. The results indicate that recruitment outcomes are influenced by participant and study characteristics. Successful enrollment requires investigations that attend to culturally and socioecologically informed recruitment and retention strategies, from staff selection, training, and supervision to overall study approach protocol, to address barriers to participation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nursing research and practice have championed survivorship care, including psychosocial care. This article outlines practical strategies to recruit and retain population-based samples, ethnic minorities, and underserved survivors.

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.

A pilot study of a culturally targeted video intervention to increase participation of African American patients in cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

Barriers to clinical trial participation among African American cancer patients are well characterized in the literature. Attitudinal barriers encompassing fear, distrust, and concerns about ethical misconduct are also well documented. To increase trial accrual, these attitudes must be adequately addressed, yet there remains a lack of targeted interventions toward this end. We developed a 15-minute culturally targeted video designed to impact six specific attitudes of African American cancer patients toward therapeutic trials. We conducted a pilot study to test in the first such intervention to increase intention to enroll.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The primary study outcome was self-reported likelihood to participate in a therapeutic trial. Using a mixed methods approach, we developed the Attitudes and Intention to Enroll in Therapeutic Clinical Trials (AIET) instrument, a 30-item questionnaire measuring six attitudinal barriers to African American trial participation. We enrolled 108 eligible active treatment patients at a large urban cancer institute. McNemar's test for matched pairs was used to assess changes in attitudes and likelihood to enroll in a clinical trial at baseline and immediately after the video. Pre- and post-video AIET summative scores were analyzed by paired t-test for each attitudinal barrier.

RESULTS

Patients' likelihood of enrolling in a clinical trial significantly increased post-video with 36% of the sample showing positive changes in intention [McNemar's χ(2) = 33.39, p < .001]. Paired t-tests showed significant changes in all six attitudinal barriers measured via AIET summative scores from pre- to post-video.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest utility of our video for increasing African American participation in clinical trials.

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.

Innovating information-delivery for potential clinical trials participants. What do patients want from multi-media resources?

OBJECTIVE

To discover whether the provision of clinical trials information via a multi-media platform could better meet the needs, preferences and practices of potential cancer trial participants.

METHODS

A mixed qualitative and quantitative questionnaire was delivered to 72 participants from cancer support groups to elicit views on the provision and design features of multimedia resources in delivering clinical trials information.

RESULTS

Perceived lack of information is an expressed barrier to clinical trials participation. Multimedia resources were viewed positively as a way to address this barrier by most potential clinical trials participants; in particular by helping to align information to individual needs, promote active engagement with information, and by allowing more control of the learning experience. Whilst text remained the most valued attribute of any resource, other highly rated attributes included the resource being simple to use, easily accessible, having a clear focus, incorporating examples and visual aids, and being interactive. Provision of support for the learning resource was also rated highly.

CONCLUSION

As in other areas, such as education, multimedia resources may enhance the delivery and acceptance of information regarding clinical trials.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Better alignment of information may have a positive impact on recruitment and retention into clinical trials.

The Experience of Screening for HIV/AIDS Medical Studies among African-American/Black and Latino/Hispanic Persons Living with HIV/AIDS: A Mixed-Methods Exploration

Objective

African-American/Black and Latino/Hispanic persons living with HIV/AIDS (i.e., “PLHA of color”) are under-represented in HIV/AIDS medical studies (HAMS). A crucial entry point into HAMS is screening, but PLHA of color face serious barriers to screening compared to Whites. Recently we evaluated a social/behavioral intervention that substantially increased rates of HAMS screening among PLHA of color. Yet very little is known about the actual screening experience for these under-represented subgroups. Thus, the objectives of the present study were to explore participants’ motivations for and experiences of HAMS screening.

Methods

A total of 186 participants in the larger study’s intervention arm were screened for HAMS, 35 of whom also participated in qualitative interviews. Participants engaged in a structured interview about the screening experience at 4- and 12- months post-baseline (14 items, Cronbach's α=0.72). Further, from a qualitative data set we purposively selected a set of three case studies to contextualize and enrich quantitative findings on screening experiences.

Results

The screening experience was overwhelmingly positive. Almost all participants reported being treated with dignity and respect, did not feel they were being treated like a “guinea pig,” and experienced a high level of trust in the setting and the screener, with no gender or racial/ethnic differences, and no differences based on whether participants were found eligible for HAMS during screening. A number of areas where screening could be improved were also identified.

Conclusions

Despite the complex barriers PLHA of color experience to screening for HAMS, the experience of screening was positive. Moreover, HAMS screening experiences were positive regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, or HAMS eligibility. HAMS screening can therefore be a productive learning experience that may reduce patient concerns about participating in HAMS. As such, fostering screening among PLHA of color can be an important component of reducing racial/ethnic disparities in HAMS.

Using decision aids to improve treatment choices for women with breast cancer

SUMMARY Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and decision-making regarding treatment options can be complex; however, patients often desire to be involved in health-related decisions. There has been a growing body of research into decision-support tools such as decision aids (DAs). Generally, DAs outperform standard care over a range of decision-making outcomes and there are some that have been developed for use with breast cancer patients across the treatment trajectory, which have been evaluated for use in practice. There is scope for developing additional DAs for cancer patients, however, there are some limitations and barriers that need to be overcome as part of the implementation process. Consideration for the mechanisms for maintaining relevancy of materials and ease of accessibility is also needed.

Unique perception of clinical trials by Korean cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In the past few years, the number of clinical trials has increased rapidly in East Asia, especially for gastric and hepatobiliary cancer that are prevalent in Asian populations. However, the actual degree of understanding or perceptions of clinical trials by cancer patients in East Asian countries have seldom been studied.

METHODS

Between July 1st and November 30th of 2011, we conducted a prospective study to survey cancer patients regarding their awareness of, and willingness to participate in, a clinical trial. Patients with gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary cancer who visited the Hematology-Oncology outpatient clinic at Samsung Medical Center (SMC) were enrolled. A total of 21 questions were asked including four questions which used the Visual analogue scale (VAS) score.

RESULTS

In this survey study, 1,000 patients were asked to participate and 675 patients consented to participate (67.5%). The awareness of clinical trials was substantially higher in patients who had a higher level of education (p<0.001), were married (p=0.004), and had a higher economic status (p=0.001). However, the willingness to participate in a clinical trial was not affected by the level of education or economic status of patients. The most influential factors for patient willingness to participate were a physician recommendation (n=181, 26.8%), limited treatment options (n=178, 26.4%), and expectations of effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs (n=142, 21.0%). Patients with previous experience in clinical trials had a greater willingness to participate in clinical trials compared to patients without previous experience (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This large patient cohort survey study showed that Korean cancer patients are more aware of clinical trials, but awareness did not translate into willingness to participate.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for couples coping with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Quality of life (QOL) is a multidimensional construct that includes physical, psychological, and relationship well-being.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies published between 1980 and 2012 of interventions conducted with both cancer patients and their partners that were aimed at improving QOL. Using bibliographic software and manual review, two independent raters reviewed 752 articles with a systematic process for reconciling disagreement, yielding 23 articles for systematic review and 20 for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted in breast and prostate cancer populations. Study participants (N = 2645) were primarily middle aged (mean = 55 years old) and white (84%). For patients, the weighted average effect size (g) across studies was 0.25 (95% CI = 0.12-0.32) for psychological outcomes (17 studies), 0.31 (95% CI = 0.11-0.50) for physical outcomes (12 studies), and 0.28 (95% CI = 0.14-0.43) for relationship outcomes (10 studies). For partners, the weighted average effect size was 0.21 (95% CI = 0.08-0.34) for psychological outcomes (12 studies) and 0.24 (95% CI = 0.6-0.43) for relationship outcomes (7 studies).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, couple-based interventions had small but beneficial effects in terms of improving multiple aspects of QOL for both patients and their partners. Questions remain regarding when such interventions should be delivered and for how long. Identifying theoretically based mediators and key features that distinguish couple-based from patient-only interventions may help strengthen their effects on patient and partner QOL.

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.

Engaging referring physicians in the clinical trial process

By building relationships with referring physicians and educating them about the clinical trial process, oncologists can help increase trial accrual among patients with cancer.

A surveillance system for monitoring, public reporting, and improving minority access to cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has recommended that each person with cancer should have access to clinical trials, which have been associated with improving care quality and disparities. With no effective enrollment monitoring system, patterns of trial enrollment remain unclear.

PURPOSE

We developed a population-based, statewide system designed to facilitate monitoring of cancer trial enrollment and targeting of future interventions to improve it.

METHODS

Person-level cancer incidence data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry (NCCCR), person-level treatment trial accrual data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and county-level Area Resource Files (ARF) measures for 12 years, 1996-2007, were studied. Deidentified person-level data necessitated county-level analysis. Enrollment rates were estimated as the ratio of trial enrollment to cancer incidence for each race, gender, year, and county combination. Multivariable analysis examined factors associated with trial accrual. Sensitivity analyses examined spurious fluctuations and temporal discordance of incidence and enrollment.

RESULTS

The NCI treatment trial enrollment rate was 2.39% for whites and 2.20% for minorities from 1996 to 2007, and 2.88% and 2.47%, respectively, from 2005 to 2007. Numerous counties had no minority enrollment. The 2005-2007 enrollment rates for white and minority females was 4.04% and 3.59%, respectively, and for white and minority males was 1.74% and 1.36%, respectively. Counties with a medical school or NCI Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP)-affiliated practice had higher trial enrollment.

LIMITATIONS

We examined NCI trial accrual only - industry-sponsored and investigator-initiated trials were excluded; however, studies comprise the majority of all clinical trial participants. Delays in data availability may hinder the immediacy of population-based analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Model stability and consistency suggest that this system is effective for population-based enrollment surveillance. For North Carolina, it suggests a worsening disparity in minority trial enrollment, though our analyses elucidate targets for intervention. Regional enrollment variation suggests the importance of access to clinical research networks and infrastructure. Substantial gender differences merit further examination.

When is it rational to participate in a clinical trial? A game theory approach incorporating trust, regret and guilt

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain an indispensable form of human experimentation as a vehicle for discovery of new treatments. However, since their inception RCTs have raised ethical concerns. The ethical tension has revolved around "duties to individuals" vs. "societal value" of RCTs. By asking current patients "to sacrifice for the benefit of future patients" we risk subjugating our duties to patients' best interest to the utilitarian goal for the good of others. This tension creates a key dilemma: when is it rational, from the perspective of the trial patients and researchers (as societal representatives of future patients), to enroll in RCTs?

METHODS

We employed the trust version of the prisoner's dilemma since interaction between the patient and researcher in the setting of a clinical trial is inherently based on trust. We also took into account that the patient may have regretted his/her decision to participate in the trial, while a researcher may feel guilty because he/she abused the patient's trust.

RESULTS

We found that under typical circumstances of clinical research, most patients can be expected not to trust researchers, and most researchers can be expected to abuse the patients' trust. The most significant factor determining trust was the success of experimental or standard treatments, respectively. The more that a researcher believes the experimental treatment will be successful, the more incentive the researcher has to abuse trust. The analysis was sensitive to the assumptions about the utilities related to success and failure of therapies that are tested in RCTs. By varying all variables in the Monte Carlo analysis we found that, on average, the researcher can be expected to honor a patient's trust 41% of the time, while the patient is inclined to trust the researcher 69% of the time. Under assumptions of our model, enrollment into RCTs represents a rational strategy that can meet both patients' and researchers' interests simultaneously 19% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an inherent ethical dilemma in the conduct of RCTs. The factors that hamper full co-operation between patients and researchers in the conduct of RCTs can be best addressed by: a) having more reliable estimates on the probabilities that new vs. established treatments will be successful, b) improving transparency in the clinical trial system to ensure fulfillment of "the social contract" between patients and researchers.

Obstacles to participation in randomised cancer clinical trials: a systematic review of the literature

Accrual to clinical trials continues to be a problem in many countries including Australia despite its fundamental importance to the progress of evidence-based medicine. This paper reviews the current literature addressing the obstacles to accrual excluding those related to protocol design. An electronic search of the literature identified publications in oncology specifically addressing the obstacles to participation in clinical trials. This search was supplemented by searches of key oncology journals. Obstacles fall into three main categories - clinician, patient and system; however, there are overlaps between categories. Clinician behaviour is the most important of these. Exclusion of patients for reasons other than defined eligibility criteria, concerns about increased time requirements, and suboptimal communication with patients all affect accrual. Risk management strategies for clinical trials need to be individualised to address the obstacles most likely to negatively impact on accrual. Communication between clinician and patient appears to be a greater issue than previously recognised. Time concerns need to be addressed as generational change affects the expectations of the medical workforce.

Effect of state-mandated insurance coverage on accrual to community cancer clinical trials

Thirty-five U.S. states and territories have implemented policies requiring insurers to cover patient care costs in the context of cancer clinical trials; however, evidence of the effectiveness of these policies is limited. This study assesses the impact of state insurance mandates on clinical trial accrual among community-based practices participating in the NCI Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP), which enrolls approximately one-third of all NCI cancer trial participants. We analyzed CCOP clinical trial enrollment over 17 years in 37 states, 14 of which implemented coverage policies, using fixed effects least squares regression to estimate the effect of state policies on trial accrual among community providers, controlling for state and CCOP differences in capacity to recruit. Of 91 CCOPs active during this time, 28 were directly affected by coverage mandates. Average recruitment per CCOP between 1991 and 2007 was 95.1 participants per year (SD=55.8). CCOPs in states with a mandate recruited similar numbers of participants compared to states without a mandate. In multivariable analysis, treatment trial accrual among CCOPs in states that had implemented a coverage mandate, was not statistically different than accrual among CCOPs in states that did not implement a coverage mandate (β=2.95, p=0.681). State mandates did not appear to confer a benefit in terms of CCOP clinical trial accrual. State policies vary in strength, which may have diluted their effect on accrual. Nonetheless, policy mandates alone may not have a meaningful impact on participation in clinical trials in these states.

Cancer patients' fears related to clinical trial participation: a qualitative study

Patient-related barriers have hindered cancer patients' abilities to participate in the decision-making processes to participate in clinical trials. However, little is known about patients' emotional barrier of fear and how physicians influence this barrier. We conducted 48 in-depth interviews with cancer patients to determine their knowledge and attitudes about participating in clinical trials, transcribed interviews verbatim, and qualitatively analyzed the transcripts using content analysis. For the purpose of this manuscript, we focused on findings related to the role of the emotional barrier of fear in cancer patients' perceptions of participating in clinical trials. The majority of cancer patients (n = 40, 83.3%) discussed fears surrounding clinical trials, particularly as it related to cancer diagnosis, clinical trial participation, and fear of the unknown. In conclusion, providers might consider addressing the role of fear in patients' considering participating in a clinical trial.

The views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials: an exploratory survey study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study was conducted to investigate the views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

A total of 291 clinical trial participants, including 140 patients and 151 healthy volunteers, were recruited from four university hospital-affiliated clinical trial centers among 15 Korean regional clinical trial centers in South Korea where the levels of information and care were sufficient to meet the global standard. Participants were recruited from phase I trials or bioequivalence tests, a short term hospitalization under close monitoring in the clinical trial centers, or from phase II, III or IV trials occurring in both wards and outpatient clinics. A structured questionnaire survey was performed to identify their perspectives on clinical trials.

RESULTS

Participants who were patients were significantly influenced by medical personnels regarding the decision making processes for participation in clinical trials when compared to healthy volunteers. However, no difference was found between the two groups in the level of willingness to participate in and satisfaction with clinical trials. More than 50% of patient subjects misunderstood and thought that their physicians could persuade them to participate in clinical trials or that all the participants would receive a new drug or treatment during trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical researchers who are involved in clinical trials should make an extra effort to confirm the level of understanding of their patients regarding the clinical trial and to guarantee that each patient has sufficient time to make an informed decision before participating in a clinical trial.

Outcomes of a cancer clinical trial matching service

The American Cancer Society (ACS) and Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) provide a clinical trial (CT) information/matching/eligibility service (Clinical Trials Matching Service [CTMS]). Patients' demographic and clinical data, enrollment status, and self-reported barriers to CT participation were analyzed to assess enrollment rates and determinants of enrollment. During 3 years beginning October 1, 2007, the CTMS served 6,903 patients via the ACS call center. Among the 1,987 patients with follow-up information on enrollment, 219 (11.0%) enrolled in a CT; 48 of these 219 enrollees chose a CT they found via the CTMS. Patients were less likely to enroll if they had poor ECOG performance status (P = 0.032); were African American (P = 0.0003), were uninsured or had Medicaid coverage (P = 0.024), or had lower stage disease (P = 0.018). Enrollment varied by trial type/cancer site/system (P = .026). Several barriers significantly predicted nonenrollment. Broader availability of a CTMS might help improve patient participation in cancer clinical trials.

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.

A National Cancer Clinical Trials Network: recommendations from the Institute of Medicine

Oncology has become one of the most active areas of drug discovery, with >800 cancer therapeutics in development. This not only presents an unprecedented opportunity to improve the outcome for patients with cancer but also requires an effective and efficient clinical trials network to generate the evidence necessary for regulatory approval and optimal integration of new treatments into clinical care. The Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program supported by the National Cancer Institute has been instrumental in establishing standards of care in oncology over the last 50 years, but it currently faces numerous challenges that threaten its ability to undertake the large-scale, multi-institutional trials that advance patient care. The Institute of Medicine recently appointed a consensus study committee to assess the organization and operation of the Cooperative Group Program and recommend ways to improve the quality of cancer clinical trials conducted by the Groups and others. The committee developed a set of recommendations, summarized here, that aim to improve the speed and efficiency of trials; incorporate innovative science and trial design; improve prioritization, selection, and support of trials; and increase participation by patients and physicians.

Comparing decision making between cancer patients and the general population: thoughts, emotions, or social influence?

This study extends a risk information seeking and processing model to explore the relative effect of cognitive processing strategies, positive and negative emotions, and normative beliefs on individuals' decision making about potential health risks. Most previous research based on this theoretical framework has examined environmental risks. Applying this risk communication model to study health decision making presents an opportunity to explore theoretical boundaries of the model, while also bringing this research to bear on a pressing medical issue: low enrollment in clinical trials. Comparative analysis of data gathered from 2 telephone surveys of a representative national sample (n = 500) and a random sample of cancer patients (n = 411) indicated that emotions played a more substantive role in cancer patients' decisions to enroll in a potential trial, whereas cognitive processing strategies and normative beliefs had greater influences on the decisions of respondents from the national sample.

In plain sight: a solution to a fundamental challenge in human research

The physician-researcher conflict of interest has thus far eluded satisfactory solution. Most attempts to deal with it focus on improving informed consent. But those attempts are not successful and may even make things worse. Research subjects are already voluntarily undertaking the risks of research--we should not ask them to go it alone--to undergo medical "treatment" without medical "care." The only effective solution is that in much clinical research, each research subject should have a doctor independent from the research study.

Does increased patient awareness improve accrual into cancer-related clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

Oncology literature cites that only 2% to 4% of patients participate in research. Up to 85% of patients are unaware that clinical trials research is being conducted at their treatment facility or that they might be eligible to participate.

OBJECTIVES

It was hypothesized that patients' satisfaction with information regarding clinical trials would improve after targeted educational interventions, and accruals to clinical trials would increase in the year following those interventions.

METHODS

All new patients referred to the cancer center over a 4-month period were mailed a baseline survey to assess their knowledge of clinical research. Subsequently, educational interventions were provided, including an orientation session highlighting clinical trials, a pamphlet, and a reference to a clinical trials Web site. A postintervention survey was sent to the responders of the initial survey 3 months after the initial mailing.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction with information significantly increased after the interventions. There was no increase in subsequent enrollment in clinical trials. Patients who indicated an inclination to participate in clinical trials tended to have greater satisfaction with the information they received.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of educational interventions designed for cancer patients significantly improved their satisfaction with information on clinical research, but did not improve clinical trial enrollment of these participants as of 1 year after the study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The development of educational interventions may be justified, but such interventions may require prolonged implementation to establish benefit. Information relating to research may be most effectively delivered by patients' primary cancer care providers.

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.

Lung cancer patients' decisions about clinical trials and the theory of planned behavior

The theory of planned behavior explores the relationship between behavior, beliefs, attitudes, and intentions presupposing that behavioral intention is influenced by a person's attitude about the behavior and beliefs about whether individuals, who are important to them, approve or disapprove of the behavior (subjective norm). An added dimension to the theory is the idea of perceived behavioral control, or the belief that one has control over performing the behavior. The theory of planned behavior suggests that people may make greater efforts to perform a behavior if they feel they have a high level of control over it. In this examination of data, we explored the application of the theory of planned behavior to patient's decisions about participating in a clinic trial. Twelve respondents in this study had previously participated in a clinical trial for lung cancer and nine respondents had declined a clinical trial for lung cancer. The data were analyzed with regard to the four constructs associated with the theory of planned behavior: behavioral intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Results indicate that the theory of planned behavior may be a useful tool to examine psychosocial needs in relation to behavioral intention of clinical trial participation.

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.

Statewide cancer clinical trial navigation service

PURPOSE

Realizing that education and awareness are paramount in making clinical trials available to improve overall accrual rates, we sought to create a clinical trial navigation service to improve the accessibility of cancer clinical trials in Florida for physicians and patients. This study was undertaken to evaluate this service. We hoped to identify characteristics of our service that were effective in promoting clinical trial enrollment and to better understand barriers that prevented enrollment.

METHODS

Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered to inform the evaluation. This information was drawn from semistructured interview and focus groups as well as data from 6,350 patient questionnaires capturing diagnosis, stage, and treatment history. Quantitative data were analyzed by computing indices of central tendency and dispersion as well as frequency distributions. Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding to identify major themes representing the information.

RESULTS

Our navigation system increased patient awareness of trials; however, this did not lead to an increase in trial enrollment. A key barrier to enrollment was the timing of the patient's awareness of a clinical trial opportunity. Often trial options were realized after a treatment course was initiated. This frequently disqualified the patient from trial consideration. We identified factors underlying the critical role of how physician attitudes toward trials affect enrollment. We also found that government databases were incomplete. Twenty-five percent of clinical trials open in Florida were not listed with Physician Data Query or clinicaltrials.gov, and 15% to 22% were erroneously listed as having sites in Florida. Media efforts to increase patient awareness and use of the navigation service were transient. One-time educational programs did not have a long-term impact on clinical trial inquiries. Patients who spoke with clinical trial navigators were four times more likely to contact a matched trial site. Sharing a common database platform with various organizations increased the likelihood of patients finding trials near home. More than 82% of patients seeking information started their search on other Web sites.

CONCLUSION

Although we were able to overcome the barriers most commonly cited by patients, we found that taking a strictly patient-focused approach was not enough. Our results underline the critical role of health professionals in guiding patients to clinical trials, by including these options at a time when patients are likely to be eligible.