Enhancing cancer clinical trial management: recommendations from a qualitative study of trial participants' experiences

Diversity in Cancer Care: Current Challenges and Potential Solutions to Achieving Equity in Clinical Trial Participation

ABSTRACT

Access to and participation in cancer clinical trials determine whether such data are applicable, feasible, and generalizable among populations. The lack of inclusion of low-income and marginalized populations limits generalizability of the critical data guiding novel therapeutics and interventions used globally. Such lack of cancer clinical trial equity is troubling, considering that the populations frequently excluded from these trials are those with disproportionately higher cancer morbidity and mortality rates. There is an urgency to increase representation of marginalized populations to ensure that effective treatments are developed and equitably applied. Efforts to ameliorate these clinical trial inclusion disparities are met with a slew of multifactorial and multilevel challenges. We aim to review these challenges at the patient, clinician, system, and policy levels. We also highlight and propose solutions to inform future efforts to achieve cancer health equity.

Clinical Research Professional Providing Care Coordination Support: A Study of Hawaii Minority/Underserved NCORP Community Site Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Although effective care coordination (CC) is recognized as a vital component of a patient-centered, high-quality cancer care delivery system, CC experiences of patients who enroll and receive treatment through clinical trials (CTs) are relatively unknown. Using mixed methods, we examined perceptions of CC among patients enrolled onto therapeutic CTs through the Hawaii Minority/Underserved National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

METHODS

The Care Coordination Instrument, a validated instrument, was used to measure patients' perceptions of CC among CT participants (n = 45) and matched controls (n = 45). Paired t-tests were used to compare overall and three CC domain scores (Communication, Navigation, and Operational) between the groups. Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted virtually with 14 CT participants in 2020/2021.

RESULTS

CT participants reported significantly higher total CC scores than non-CT participants (P = .0008). Similar trends were found for Navigation and Operational domain scores (P = .007 and .001, respectively). Twenty-nine percent of CT participants reported receiving high-intensity CC assistance from their clinical research professionals (CRPs). Content analysis of focus group discussions revealed that nearly half of the focus group discussions centered on CRPs (47%), including CC support provided by CRPs (26%). Other key themes included general CT experiences (22%) and CRP involvement as an additional benefit to CT participation (15%).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that patients on CTs in this study had a more positive CC experience. This may be attributable in part to CC support provided by CRPs. These findings highlight both the improved experience of treatment for patients participating in a trial and the generally unrecognized yet integral role of CRPs as part of a cancer CT care team.

Methodological approaches for conducting follow-up research with clinical trial participants: a scoping review and expert interviews

Background

Evidence-based establishment and implementation of best principles, laws and ordinances that regulate clinical research depend on the consultation and involvement of trial participants. Yet, guidance on methodological approaches to obtain trial participants’ perspectives is currently missing. This scoping review therefore aimed at identifying, describing and evaluating research approaches to obtain trial participants’ feedback on their views and experiences.

Methods

We searched the electronic databases Medline and PsycInfo via Ovid and the Web of Science Core Collection. Clinical trials were included that involved adult participants that were conducted in selected high-income countries and that were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 2018. In addition, 29 expert interviews were conducted between March and May 2019.

Results

Out of 5994 identified records, 23 articles were included in this review. Twelve studies used a qualitative approach, 10 were quantitative and one study used a mixed-method design. More than 75% of all work was conducted in the USA and the UK. The scoping review and the expert interviews highlighted that recruitment of participants was generally done through direct contact by principal investigators and/or study nurses or through searches in de-identified patient databases. Authors used surveys, interviews or focus group discussions. The tools used were either based on existing validated ones or developed and verified de novo with the support of experts and/or patient representatives.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first methodological literature review of approaches to researching experiences of clinical trial participants where findings were triangulated with expert interviews. Covering a range of indications, trial phases and study settings, it demonstrates that clinical trial participant perspectives and experience is heavily under-researched. This casts doubt on the overall robustness of available insight into trial participants’ views and experiences. Our results demonstrate that the methodology for studying participant opinion, perception and experience should be adapted to the measure of interest and conform to the study population. Using valid patient experience data is the basis to evaluate existing legal and regulatory human subject research frameworks for their appropriateness from a patient perspective. Such an evaluation will be critical to empower research participants.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Online monitoring of patient self-reported adverse events in early phase clinical trials: Views from patients, clinicians, and trial staff

BACKGROUND/AIMS

New classes of cancer drugs bring a range of unknown and undesirable adverse events. Adverse event monitoring is essential in phase I trials to assess toxicity and safety. In phase II, the focus is also on efficacy but robust data on adverse events continue to inform the safety and the adverse event profile. Standard, clinician-led monitoring has been shown to underestimate patients' symptoms. Hence, patient-reported adverse event monitoring has been argued to complement and improve the information on adverse events in early phase clinical trials. With advances in information technology, real-time patient self-reported adverse events in trials are feasible. This study explored the experiences and procedures for reporting adverse events in early phase trials among patients, clinical staff, and trial staff, and their views on using an electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event system in this setting.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients, purposively sampled across ages, gender, and different phases of trials, and with clinical and trial-related staff involved in early phase trials (e.g. consultants, research nurses, hospital-based trial assistants/data managers, trial unit management staff). Interviews explored patient experiences and views on current adverse event reporting processes and electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. Framework analysis techniques were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Interviewees were from two hospital trusts with early phase portfolios in England and a trial unit, and included sixteen patients, five consultants, four research nurses, five hospital-based trial staff, and two trial unit staff. Interviews identified three key themes (patient experiences, data flow, and views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting). Stakeholders emphasised the intensity of trials for patients and the importance of extensive information provision within the uncertainty of early phase trial drugs. Regular face-to-face appointments for patients supplemented by telephone contact aimed to capture any adverse events. Delayed or under-reporting of mild- or low-severity symptoms was evident among patients. Hospital-based staff highlighted the challenges of current data collection including intense timescales, monitoring by trial sponsors, and high workload. Positive views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse events highlighted that this could provide a more comprehensive and accurate view on the side effects of new drugs. Clinical staff emphasised patient safety and the need for clear responsibilities for monitoring. The need for careful decision-making about data flow and symptom attribution was highlighted; with trial unit staff emphasising the need for clinician review.

CONCLUSION

Technology advances mean it is timely to explore the benefits and challenges of electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. This is a complex area warranting further consideration within the trial community. We have developed an online patient self-reporting tool and a small pilot with early phase trial patients is underway.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

Who Needs What? Perceptions of Patients and Caregivers in Oncology Phase 1 Trials

Background:

The study design and nature of oncology phase 1 clinical trials create a uniquely vulnerable patient population yet little research has been conducted to identify the added burden these trials create for both cancer patients and their caregiver(s).

Objective:

Examining the perceptions and needs of patients and their caregivers participating in phase 1 oncology clinical trials, the investigators tested the hypothesis that the caregiver will exhibit a higher level of burden and/or distress than the patient.

Method:

A mixed-methods exploratory process utilizing patient and caregiver interviews and quality-of-life questionnaires was used to assess the psychosocial burdens associated with oncology clinical trial participation. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the responses were 8 performed.

Result:

Both patients and caregivers reported similar themes identifying the burdens and benefits related to phase 1 clinical trial participation. However, the caregivers’ expressed burden exceeded that of the patients’ validating the study’s hypothesis.

Conclusion:

The need for ongoing additional support services for not only the patient but also the caregiver was identified.

Well-Being of Child and Family Participants in Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Pediatric oncology phase 1 clinical trials (P1Ts) are essential to developing new anticancer therapies; however, they raise complex ethical concerns about balancing the need for this research with the well-being of participating children. The purpose of this integrative review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence of how P1T participation, which begins with consent and ends with the transition off the P1T, can affect the well-being (either positively or negatively) of children with cancer. The Resilience in Individuals and Families Affected by Cancer Framework, which has an outcome of well-being, was used to synthesize findings.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles on the experiences of child (n = 21) and adult (n = 31) P1T participants were identified through systematic searches.

DATA EVALUATION

Articles were evaluated on rigor and relevance to P1T participant experiences as high, medium, or low.

SYNTHESIS

Minimal empirical evidence was found regarding the effect of P1T participation on the well-being of children with cancer. Adult P1T participant experiences provide insights that could also be important to children's P1T experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

To achieve a balanced approach in P1T consent discussions, nurses and healthcare providers who work with children considering participation in a P1T should share the potential effect of participation on participants' well-being.

Identifying essential information to support patient decision-making regarding participation in cancer clinical trials: A Delphi study

PURPOSES

This research set out to contribute to ongoing efforts to improve the quality of informed consent information provided to patients by specifically focusing on establishing consensus with regard to essential information to enhance the informed consent process.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A Delphi consensus method was used to conduct three rounds of online surveys. Five groups of experts directly or indirectly involved in the informed consent process were invited to participate: patients, family members/friends, physicians, other health professionals and other key informants, including ethicists, contract research staff and pharmaceutical company staff.

FINDINGS

Of 156 eligible participants, 101 participants (64.7%) completed all three rounds. In round 1, 994 information items were reported and generated into 74 statements. These were grouped under eight headings essential to the informed consent process. In rounds 2 and 3, the list was reduced to 15 statements representing consensus on essential information to be included in a summarised patient information document to support decision-making regarding trial participation. Risks and discomforts, participation requirements and trial governance were identified as important considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 15 essential statements identified in this study could be used as components of a summarised information sheet given to potential cancer clinical trial participants, as an adjunct to the informed consent process. A robust evaluation of the impact of these statements on the quality of the informed consent process is needed.

Qualitative study of barriers to clinical trial retention in adults with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Regular physical exercise may preserve β cell function in newly diagnosed adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, clinical trials to test this theory require the recruitment and retention of adults with new-onset T1D, which can be challenging. We sought to determine the overall experiences of newly diagnosed adults with T1D in an exercise study, to understand issues that influence the retention of trial participants in such studies.

DESIGN

Qualitative methodology using individual face-to-face (n=6) and telephone interviews (n=14). Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using the framework method.

SETTING

The study took place at five participating UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty participants, aged 19-55 years, in the Exercise for Type 1 Diabetes study were interviewed to explore their study experiences and identify motivators and deterrents towards the study. Participants in control and intervention arms were interviewed, as were people with T1D who had completed (n=16) and withdrawn (n=4).

RESULTS

Participants revealed barriers and facilitators to retention; the majority were generalisable to clinical trials of people with newly diagnosed T1D. Coming to terms with a diagnosis of T1D, lack of time, work pressures, level of health professional support, volume, clarity and consistency of information and feedback and a desire for knowledge about their condition were all cited as influencing factors to trial retention.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to examine the experience of being involved in an exercise trial by people with T1D. Findings suggest appointments could be shorter, available outside of working hours and planned longer in advance; study information should be clear, consistent and in electronic and paper formats; questionnaires need minimising; healthcare support and feedback needs providing regularly; thought is required around how to support non-exercising arm participants. These considerations may improve participant retention rates in new-onset T1D studies.

When Nursing Care and Clinical Trials Coincide: A Qualitative Study of the Views of Nordic Oncology and Hematology Nurses on Ethical Work Challenges

This study investigated the kinds of ethical challenges experienced by nurses in oncology and hematology when nursing care and research overlap in clinical trials, and how the nurses handle such challenges. Individual interviews with 39 nurses from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland indicated that all nurses were positive about research, considering it essential for developing the best care. Ethical challenges exist, however; the most difficult were associated with the end-of-life patients, no longer responsive to standard therapy, who eagerly volunteer for cutting-edge drug trials in the hope of gaining therapeutic benefit. Many nurses lacked systematic strategies for addressing such challenges but found support from their nursing colleagues and relied on the research protocols to guide them.

Patient-centered recruitment and retention for a randomized controlled study

Background

Recruitment and retention strategies for patient-centered outcomes research are evolving and research on the subject is limited. In this work, we present a conceptual model of patient-centered recruitment and retention, and describe the recruitment and retention activities and related challenges in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness trial.

Methods

This is a multicenter, longitudinal randomized controlled trial in localized prostate cancer patients.

Results

We recruited 743 participants from three sites over 15 months period (January 2014 to March 2015), and followed them for 24 months. At site 1, of the 773 eligible participants, 551 (72%) were enrolled. At site 2, 34 participants were eligible and 23 (68%) enrolled. Of the 434 eligible participants at site 3, 169 (39%) enrolled. We observed that strategies related to the concepts of trust (e.g., physician involvement, ensuring protection of information), communication (e.g., brochures and pamphlets in physicians’ offices, continued contact during regular clinic visits and calling/emailing assessment), attitude (e.g., emphasizing the altruistic value of research, positive attitude of providers and research staff), and expectations (e.g., full disclosure of study requirements and time commitment, update letters) facilitated successful patient recruitment and retention. A stakeholders’ advisory board provided important input for the recruitment and retention activities. Active engagement, reminders at the offices, and personalized update letters helped retention during follow-up. Usefulness of telephone recruitment was site specific and, at one site, the time requirement for telephone recruitment was a challenge.

Conclusions

We have presented multilevel strategies for successful recruitment and retention in a clinical trial using a patient-centered approach. Our strategies were flexible to accommodate site-level requirements. These strategies as well as the challenges can aid recruitment and retention efforts of future large-scale, patient-centered research studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02032550. Registered on 22 November 2013.

Qualitative analysis of clinical research coordinators' role in phase I cancer clinical trials

Background

Clinical research coordinators play a pivotal role in phase I cancer clinical trials.

Purpose

We clarified the care coordination and practice for patients provided by clinical research coordinators in phase I cancer clinical trials in Japan and elucidated clinical research coordinators' perspective on patients' expectations and understanding of these trials.

Method

Fifteen clinical research coordinators participated in semi-structured interviews regarding clinical practices; perceptions of patients' expectations; and the challenges that occur before, during, and after phase I cancer clinical trials.

Discussion

Qualitative content analysis showed that most clinical research coordinators observed that patients have high expectations from the trials. Most listened to patients to confirm patients' understanding and reflected on responses to maintain hope, but to avoid excessive expectations; clinical research coordinators considered avoiding unplanned endings; and they aimed to establish good relationships between patients, medical staff, and among the professional team.

Conclusions

Clinical research coordinators were insightful about the needs of patients and took a meticulous approach to the phase I cancer clinical trial process, allowing time to connect with patients and to coordinate the inter-professional research team. Additionally, education in advanced oncology care was valuable for comforting participants in cancer clinical trials.

Exploring the motivations of patients with type 2 diabetes to participate in clinical trials: a qualitative analysis

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Certain patient groups are reluctant to engage with clinical research and consequently findings are not always truly representative of the wider population. With the emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, clinical research as a core activity for the National Health Service (NHS) and the rising prevalence of diabetes within the United Kingdom (UK) it is important to understand what motivates people to volunteer for research in diabetes and identify the barriers to this involvement. This research interviewed 12 people with type 2 diabetes who had previously taken part in diabetes clinical trials. The transcripts of these interviews were analysed to identify themes that informed the study findings.There were wide ranging reasons for participating in clinical trials. Both altruistic and self-interest motivation were universally expressed. The thought of helping others was a powerful experience but for some there was a sense of duty to volunteer especially if they had benefited from NHS care. Participating was empowering, with extra access to healthcare professionals, practical information and support for their condition. Coping with the logistics of being in a trial relied upon a strong network of family and friends. Some felt anxious at the end of the trial having been supported during the research and appreciating the camaraderie of belonging to a group or team.This study provides insights into the motivations and barriers to involvement in clinical research in type 2 diabetes helping researchers to encourage and support more volunteers in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT

Background Certain patient groups are reluctant to engage with clinical research and consequently findings of the research are not always truly representative of the wider population. This, together with a growing prominence of evidence-based clinical practice, an increasing emphasis of clinical research as a core activity for the NHS and the rising prevalence of diabetes within the UK population, requires an understanding of motivations and barriers for patients consenting to participate in diabetes clinical trials.Methods To understand patients' motivations for participating in clinical trials in type 2 diabetes. We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 participants with type 2 diabetes with previous involvement in clinical trials. Individual, tape-recorded, semi structured interviews were conducted to explore motivations and experiences of the participants. We carried out thematic content analysis to identify themes, from which theoretical interpretations were formed.Results There were wide ranging reasons for participating in clinical trials. We identified 3 key themes: (1) Motivations ranged from altruism to self-interest; (2) participation in clinical trials was an empowering experience; and (3) key to participation was a strong network of support.Conclusion Patients are motivated to participate in clinical trials by a sense of altruism coupled with self-interest. This self-interest centres on the belief that participation would be an informative and empowering experience with increased access to healthcare professionals. However the ability to cope with the logistics of being in clinical trials relies upon an extensive and reliable network of support from family, friends, work colleagues and employers, together with a collaborative approach to their care from the researchers and their usual healthcare providers.

The hopes of the dying: Examining patients' experience of participation in early phase cancer clinical trials

This paper presents a theoretical examination of the key findings from a longitudinal qualitative study of the experience of cancer clinical trial participation. The aim of the study was to identify the psychosocial impact of participating in early phase trials as experienced by the patients themselves; it sought to discover and interpret their ways of coping with what was happening to them and identify the meaning and consequences of trial involvement. The picture of trial involvement that emerged from the study was of a dynamic and changing experience that had a different impact and meaning for patients as they progressed through the trial process. When reflecting on the stories and experiences presented by those interviewed, the importance of two major themes in relation to how patients experienced trial involvement began to emerge: hope and dying. In order to explore and examine further the patients' trial experience revealed by this research, some of the theoretical perspectives on the emergent themes of hope and dying are examined and discussed. By engaging with some of the current theories on dying and hope and applying these to key points in the trial experience, an attempt is made in this paper to explain patients' behaviour in, and experience of, clinical trial participation.

Involvement and (Potential) Influence of Care Providers in the Enlistment Phase of the Informed Consent Process: the case of aids clinical trials

This article draws on ethnographic field data collected during an investigation of the informed consent process and AIDS clinical trials. It describes the involvement of care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) during the enlistment, or recruitment, phase of the informed consent process. It shows that sometimes care providers are involved in the receipt, evaluation and distribution of information on clinical trials through their interactions with research professionals and patients. It suggests that the involvement of care providers has the potential to influence the informed consent process. Some of the ethical and practice considerations of this are discussed.

How did partners experience cancer patients' participation in a phase I study? An observational study after a patient's death

OBJECTIVE

It can be assumed that patients' participation in a phase I study will have an important impact on their partners' life. However, evaluation of partners' experiences while patients are undergoing experimental treatment and of their well-being after the patient's death is lacking. We aimed to explore partners' experience of patients' participation in phase I studies and to investigate their well-being after a patient's death.

METHOD

This was an observational study conducted after the patient's death. Partners of deceased patients who had participated in a phase I study completed a questionnaire designed by us for experience evaluation and the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Inventory of Traumatic Grief, and the RAND-36 Health Survey.

RESULTS

The median age of the 58 participating partners was 58 years (range: 51-65), and 67% was female. Partners reported negative effects on patients' quality of life, but only 5% of partners regretted patients' participation. Approximately two years after the patients' death, 19% of partners scored for depression, 36% for psychological distress, and 46% for complicated grief, and partners generally scored significantly lower on social and mental functioning compared to normative comparators.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Although partners reported negative consequences on patients' quality of life, most did not regret patients' participation in the phase I studies. Prevalence of depression, psychological distress, and complicated grief seemed important problems after a patient's death, and these must be considered when shaping further support for partners of patients participating in phase I trials.

Factors affecting recruitment into depression trials: Systematic review, meta-synthesis and conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Depression is common and clinical trials are crucial for evaluating treatments. Difficulties in recruiting participants into depression trials are well-documented, yet no study has examined the factors affecting recruitment. This review aims to identify the factors affecting recruitment into depression trials and to develop a conceptual framework through systematic assessment of published qualitative research.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-synthesis of published qualitative studies. Meta-synthesis involves a synthesis of themes across a number of qualitative studies to produce findings that are "greater than the sum of the parts". ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline and PsychInfo were searched up to April 2013. Reference lists of included studies, key publications and relevant reviews were also searched. Quality appraisal adopted the "prompts for appraising qualitative research".

RESULTS

7977 citations were identified, and 15 studies were included. Findings indicate that the decision to enter a depression trial is made by patients and gatekeepers based on the patient׳s health state at the time of being approached to participate; on their attitude towards the research and trial interventions; and on the extent to which patients become engaged with the trial. Our conceptual framework highlights that the decision to participate by both the patient and the gatekeeper involves a judgement between risk and reward.

LIMITATIONS

Only English language publications were included in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review have implications for the design of interventions to improve recruitment into depression trials. Such interventions may aim to diminish the perceived risks and increase the perceived rewards of participation.

Mindfulness for the self-management of fatigue, anxiety, and depression in women with metastatic breast cancer: a mixed methods feasibility study

The impact of living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is considerable and psychosocial support can be beneficial. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) can help self-management of anxiety, depression, quality of life (QoL), and fatigue and has been evaluated in early-stage breast cancer but not MBC. This study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of providing MBSR for women with MBC and of introducing MBSR into a National Health Service (NHS) setting. A mixed methods convergent design was used. Eligible women with MBC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 to 2, stable disease, and life expectancy of at least 6 months were invited to attend (by their oncologist) an 8-week MBSR course. Qualitative interviews with patients, a focus group, and interview with NHS staff were held to explore acceptability and feasibility of MBSR. Questionnaires at baseline, during (weeks 4, 8), and after (weeks 16, 24) the course measured fatigue, anxiety and depression, mindfulness, disease-specific QoL, and generic preference based QoL. Of 100 women approached, 20 joined the study. One woman dropped out prior to the intervention due to illness progression. Nineteen women took part in 3 MBSR courses. Recruitment to 2 of the 3 courses was slow. Commitment to 8 weeks was a reason for non-participation, and proved challenging to participants during the course. Participants found the course acceptable and reported many cumulative and ongoing benefits. These included feeling less reactive to emotional distress and more accepting of the disruption to life that occurs with living with MBC. There was high attendance, completion of course sessions, adherence to home practice, excellent follow-up rates, and high questionnaire return rates. MBSR was acceptable to MBC patients, who perceived benefits such as improved anxiety and QoL; but the MBSR course requires a considerable time commitment. There is scope to tailor the intervention so that it is less intensive.

The impact on quality of life for people with brain tumours of entering a research trial involving new anti-cancer agents

PURPOSE

The intention of this study was to offer an alternative perspective to the quantitative findings of larger randomised controlled trials by using a phenomenological approach to explore the impact on Quality of Life (QoL) for people with brain tumours of entering a research trial involving new anti-cancer agents.

METHOD

Given the subjective nature of the proposed topic, a phenomenological approach was adopted. Sample size was limited to five participants. A semi-structured interview technique was used. Interviews were digitally audio recorded with permission from those involved. In order to guide data analysis for this study, Colaizzi's framework was utilised.

RESULTS

As a result of data analysis, two major themes were identified. These were 'Hope and optimism' and 'The therapeutic relationship'. Three minor themes were also found. These were 'A complex symptom profile', 'The importance of non-medical coping strategies' and 'Impressions of the QoL tools used'.

CONCLUSIONS

This phenomenological study has highlighted key themes relating to QoL which are not addressed in some of the widely used assessment tools such as the EORTC QLQ C30 and BN20. They generally focus on health status, and do not capture issues identified in this study as being of significant importance to the QoL of participants such as hope and optimism, and the importance of the therapeutic relationship. They also omit reference to coping and management strategies.

Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Biobanks have become strategic resources for biomedical and genetic research. The aim of the present empirical qualitative study was to investigate how patients with cancer perceive and experience the process of donation to biobanks, focussing on the subjective meanings associated with their decisions when they are asked in a routine context to agree to their own biological specimens being used for research projects.

DESIGN

A qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews to explore in depth the reasons why patients with cancer agree to participating in biobanking. Participants  Nineteen patients (aged 28-82 years) being treated for colorectal cancer or leukaemia at a French cancer centre participated in this study.

RESULTS

Contributing to biobanks was experienced here as a rewarding and empowering individual experience because of the psychological issues involved, such as feelings of hope associated with research, because it makes the relationship with researchers and clinicians less asymmetrical, revalorization of otherwise 'wasted' tissue, and also as an act of solidarity and reciprocity, which makes patients part of a community.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Patients seem to regard contributing to biobanks as an act of benevolence, which they are motivated to perform because of societal welfare considerations as well as the hope of subjective benefits. Knowledge about the patients' perspective and of the psychological rewards associated with tumour donation should be taken into account by physicians and caregivers discussing this topic with their patients.

Personal benefit, or benefiting others? Deciding whether to take part in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Participation in clinical trials is critical for the success of evidence-based healthcare. Much previous research suggests that people take part in clinical trials mostly for altruistic reasons, and that deriving personal benefit is a secondary consideration.

PURPOSE

To investigate patients' reasons for deciding whether to take part in clinical trials and the extent to which personal benefit may be a motivating factor.

METHODS

A qualitative study utilizing in-depth semi-structured interviews. Participants were 42 men and women who had been asked to participate in clinical trials testing a range of interventions in different conditions, including some who did not participate or withdrew. Trials were based in either primary or secondary care. Interviews were conducted at home.

RESULTS

Reasons for taking part were complex and a wide variety of personal considerations were evident. Gaining some personal benefit emerged as an important primary motivation in this group of respondents, whereas altruistic considerations appeared to be largely subsidiary. People who decided not to take part were also mainly concerned about the balance of personal risk and benefit.

LIMITATIONS

Public dissemination of the results may have influenced participants' responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving target sample sizes for clinical trials may be enhanced by an understanding of what is likely to motivate patients to take part. In this study, respondents identified a range of attractive benefits, such as care in a specialist team with expert staff, active engagement in their health monitoring or care, more frequent or intensive monitoring, and information about the latest research into their condition.

Timing of palliative care referral and symptom burden in phase 1 cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Phase 1 trials offer patients with advanced cancer the opportunity to pursue life-prolonging cancer treatments. In the current study, the timing of referral and symptom burden between patients referred to palliative care by phase 1 oncologists and those referred by non-phase 1 oncologists were compared.

METHODS

All 57 patients with advanced solid tumors who were referred by phase 1 oncologists to the palliative care outpatient clinic at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) between 2007 and 2008 were included. The comparison cohort was comprised of 114 non-phase 1 patients who were stratified by age, sex, and cancer diagnosis in a 1:2 ratio. Information regarding patient characteristics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), timing of referral, and survival was retrieved.

RESULTS

Both cohorts had the following matched characteristics: average age of 57 years, with 44% of the patients being female and 47% having gastrointestinal cancers. At the time of palliative care consultation, patients referred by phase 1 oncologists were more likely than patients referred by non-phase 1 oncologists to have a better performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1: 61% vs 36% [P = .003). The ESAS was not significantly different with the exception of better well-being in the phase 1 cohort (mean, 4.5 vs 5.5; P = .03). No difference was found for the duration between registration at MDACC and palliative care consultation (13 months vs 11 months; P = .41) and overall survival from the time of palliative care consultation (5 months vs 4 months; P = .69).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatients referred to palliative care by phase 1 oncologists were found to have a better performance status but similar symptom burden compared with patients referred by non-phase 1 oncologists. Patients with phase 1 involvement did not appear to have delayed palliative care referral compared with non-phase 1 patients. The results of the current study support the development of a simultaneous care model.

Cancer-related psychosocial research: what are the perspectives of cancer care centre users on participation?

PURPOSE

To explore the perspectives of cancer care centre users on participation in psychosocial research to inform research design and ethics.

METHODS

The study is based on a qualitative research design. Fourteen semistructured interviews were carried in people diagnosed with cancer and carers. The interview included four main questions about practical barriers to participation, types of research design, motivating factors and the conduct of research in a cancer care support setting. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees demonstrated a willingness to participate in psychosocial research within certain circumstances. There were no practical barriers identified, although they considered payment for research-related travel important. The most acceptable research design was the face-to-face interview and the least preferred was the randomised control trial. The factors that motivated participation were altruism, valuing research, and making a contribution to the centre. Interviewees supported the conduct of research in cancer care support centres conditional upon delaying recruitment during the initial months of users' visits and its need to be discreet to avoid deterring visitors from accessing the centre.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concludes that the personal interaction between participants and researchers is the most important feature of decision-making by patients/carers to join studies. Taking into account the perspectives of people affected by cancer during the early stages of research design may enhance recruitment and retention and can contribute to the development of research protocols and ethics.

The Experience of Older Patients With Cancer in Phase 1 Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Case Series

This article explores the experiences of older patients with cancer in phase 1 clinical trials. Conducting a case series of face-to-face, in-depth, open-ended interviews and using qualitative methods of analysis, we find that the psychosocial process of social comparison is relevant for understanding older adults’ phase 1 clinical trial participation. Social comparison influences decisions to enroll in a phase 1 clinical trial, shapes perceptions of supportive care needs, and encourages the utilization of hope. Additional research should develop strategies for addressing supportive care needs among this patient cohort whose use of social comparison can inhibit articulation of pain, suffering, and symptom burden as well as use of informal support systems.

Volunteer research subjects' experience of participation in research on a novel diagnostic technology for breast cancer

Although volunteer research subjects play a crucial role in the development of new health technologies, there have been relatively few in-depth studies of what participation in research means to them, and how they manage and make sense of the research encounter. Using constructivist perspectives we analyze data from 15 United States-based women taking part in tests of prototype instrumentation with potential for cancer diagnosis, comparing their responses with findings from a larger study (using the same interview methodology) on United Kingdom-based women participating in a similar program. For both groups the prime concerns emerging at interview related to the social rather than the physical challenges of participation. Both deployed similar discursive strategies to manage these tensions.We suggest that, at least within the limits of the kind of low-risk, nontherapeutic research studied, lessons can be drawn for research management, particularly the key role of the researcher-researched working relationship in assuring mutually satisfactory outcomes.

How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial?

Background

As the number of randomised controlled trials of medicines for children increases, it becomes progressively more important to understand the experiences of parents who are asked to enrol their child in a trial. This paper presents a narrative review of research evidence on parents' experiences of trial recruitment focussing on qualitative research, which allows them to articulate their views in their own words.

Discussion

Parents want to do their best for their children, and socially and legally their role is to care for and protect them yet the complexities of the medical and research context can challenge their fulfilment of this role. Parents are simultaneously responsible for their child and cherish this role yet they are dependent on others when their child becomes sick. They are keen to exercise responsibility for deciding to enter a child in a trial yet can be fearful of making the 'wrong' decision. They make judgements about the threat of the child's condition as well as the risks of the trial yet their interpretations often differ from those of medical and research experts. Individual parents will experience these and other complexities to a greater or lesser degree depending on their personal experiences and values, the medical situation of their child and the nature of the trial. Interactions at the time of trial recruitment offer scope for negotiating these complexities if practitioners have the flexibility to tailor discussions to the needs and situation of individual parents. In this way, parents may be helped to retain a sense that they have acted as good parents to their child whatever decision they make.

Summary

Discussing randomised controlled trials and gaining and providing informed consent is challenging. The unique position of parents in giving proxy consent for their child adds to this challenge. Recognition of the complexities parents face in making decisions about trials suggests lines for future research on the conduct of trials, and ultimately, may help improve the experience of trial recruitment for all parties.

The clinical research enterprise in critical care: what's right, what's wrong, and what's ahead?

Intensivists have been remarkably successful in using randomized controlled trials to assess aspects of current practice. Unfortunately, this success has not been mirrored in trials of new pharmacotherapy, despite convincing pathophysiological rationales and encouraging preliminary studies. Misunderstandings of biological processes and flawed early clinical studies have led to the almost universal failure of fundamentally new treatments subjected to large phase III trials, despite their sound methodology. Compounding these problems is the tendency for new approaches to be either implemented widely on the basis of relatively poor studies or ignored despite strong supporting evidence. Having mastered the principles of evidence-based medicine in assessing existing therapy, intensivists have established a strong foundation. Critical care medicine must now embrace the challenge of translating a more solid understanding of basic disease mechanisms into widely implemented treatments.

Surveying the experience of living with metastatic breast cancer: comparing face-to-face and online recruitment

Abstract

With its growing use, the Internet offers researchers a novel approach in reaching those they seek to study locally, nationally or globally. The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience of using the Internet as one means of recruiting to a research study exploring the experience of women with metastatic breast cancer and to compare the methodological issues of using face-to-face and online approaches to survey recruitment. The survey incorporated the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality of life measure, a patient experience with care measure and open ended text questions about respondents’ physical, emotional and practical needs. Recruitment was done face-to-face in two cancer centres and on the Breast Cancer Care (it is the UK’s leading provider of information, practical assistance and emotional support for anyone affected by breast cancer) Website, recruiting 110 people in the cancer centres and 125 from the Website. The age range was 25–84. Website respondents were significantly younger than cancer centre respondents (<0.000). They also had significantly lower social well-being on the FACT-B scale and were less satisfied with information and advice (<0.000) and their personal experience of care (<0.010). Finally, we consider the role of the Internet in research and the methodological and ethical challenges this presents both now and in the future.

Improving the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care: the potential role of qualitative research in enhancing evidence from randomized controlled trials

Evaluating interventions in palliative care using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has helped advance the specialty and create an evidence base for the delivery of care. RCTs, however, are notoriously difficult to conduct in palliative care, raising a variety of practical, ethical and moral dilemmas. Mixed-methods research, which combines qualitative research and RCTs, offers a potential solution to these problems. This paper begins by examining the theoretical basis for combining the two approaches, before reviewing the specific role qualitative research could play in planning, conducting and implementing trials. The paper then goes on to explore how palliative care research currently uses the mixed-methods approach, by searching the trials included in six Cochrane Systematic Reviews (n = 146) on the incorporation of qualitative research. Only one trial undertook qualitative research. These findings reflect some of the challenges facing mixed-methods research, which include lack of experience in a research team, the problems of obtaining funding and difficulties in publishing. The paper concludes that while combining qualitative and quantitative research is not a panacea for methodological problems in palliative care research, with careful planning and integration, the approach may enhance the clinical and ethical utility of trial findings, which in turn will improve patient care.

Phase I participants' views of quality of life and trial participation burdens

PURPOSE

Participants' perception of quality of life (QOL) and respondent burden have significant implications for investigators' ethical responsibilities to their subjects in phase I cancer trials. To address these responsibilities, analysis was conducted on participants' views of their experiences of a phase I trial, including the associated burdens and what constitutes QOL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred potential participants of the endostatin trial were surveyed. Sixteen of the 18 trial participants were interviewed extensively about their experiences on the trial.

RESULTS

Participants described 'normality' as a baseline ability to function, be productive, and be free from symptoms of disease and side effects of treatment. Reflecting the relative nontoxicity of the study drug, participants contrasted their current QOL with their negative experience of previous cancer treatments and viewed their QOL as fairly good. However, participants emphasized that indirect and procedural burdens of trial participation had a significant impact on their current QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Candid descriptions of a trial's practical demands, in addition to potential physical complications in a trial, could improve the quality of informed consent.

Improving informed consent: suggestions from parents of children with leukemia

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report suggestions for improving the informed consent process from the perspective of parents of children with leukemia.

METHODS

Recommendations for improving informed consent were elicited from 140 parents of children who had been offered participation in a randomized clinical trial for the treatment of their acute leukemia. Four different methods and data collection time points were used with this group of parents, including open-ended, in-person interviews within 72 hours after the informed consent conference; follow-up telephone interviews 6 months after diagnosis; focus groups during year 3 of the project; and a parent advisory group on informed consent meeting in year 4.

RESULTS

The most frequently cited suggestions for improving informed consent during the interviews and focus groups related to giving parents more time to make their decision, the amount and type of information provided, organization of the consent conference, communication style, and providing additional materials. During the parent advisory group on informed consent meeting, parents developed specific guidelines for organization of the information that is presented during the consent process that include 7 major components: timing, sequence, checklist, checking for understanding, anticipatory guidance, segue into randomized clinical trial discussion with historical perspective, and choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the incorporation of parental perspectives that provide an authentic stakeholder voice, our research represents a true partnership approach to improving the consent process. Parents provided practical advice for improving informed consent that can be applied to most adult and pediatric patient populations.

Why do women consent to surgery, even when they do not want to? An interactionist and Bourdieusian analysis

The 'informed consent' process has been placed at the centre of bioethical and policy discourses about how the autonomy and rights of patients can best be protected. Although there has been critical analysis of how the process functions in relation to participation in research and particular ethical 'dilemmas', there has been little examination of the routine business of consenting to medical procedures. Evidence is now beginning to emerge that people may consent to surgery even when reluctant to do so. In this paper, we develop an analysis informed by Bourdieusian and interactionist social theory of the accounts of 25 British women who consented to surgery in obstetrics and gynaecology. Of these, nine were ambivalent or opposed to having an operation. When faced with a consent form, women's accounts suggest that they rarely do anything other than obey professionals' requests for a signature. Women's capacity to act is reduced as they become enmeshed in the hospital structure of tacit, socially imposed rules of conduct. However, the interactionist account of power operating through the social rules of particular situated encounters, and the sanctions associated with rule-breaking, may not provide a sufficiently powerful explanation for why women submit to surgery they are opposed or ambivalent towards. Bourdieu's concepts of habitus, capital and symbolic power/violence offer a potentially more elaborated account, by showing how the practical logic that women apply in the field of surgery confers a 'sense of place' relative to professionals. Women experience deficits in capital, intensified by their physical vulnerability in critical situations, that severely constrain their ability to exercise choice. This work demonstrates the weakness of the consent process as a safeguard of autonomy. Far from reinforcing autonomy, the process may reinforce rather than disrupt passivity, but more generally our findings raise the question of the extent to which autonomy is an illusory goal.

Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials

Participation in clinical trials remains low and is a central issue in oncology. The authors identified, through a systematic review, 75 papers published up to August 2004 that report barriers to recruitment of patients in clinical trials. These barriers range from patient preference and concern about information/consent to clinical problems with protocols. Strategies to overcome barriers on the part of patients and clinicians are needed and should be carefully evaluated. Thirty-three (44%) papers reported factors related to patients as influencing the inclusion of patients, 28 (37%) reported clinician's related factors, and 37 (49%) other factors from either specific groups of patients (30 papers, 40%) and/or other scopes (13 papers, 17%). No differences in prevalence were found between papers dedicated to hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Factors related to clinicians as influential were more frequently reported before 1995 (70%) than thereafter (25%; P = 0.0009). Reporting specific groups of patients as influential was more frequent in North American articles (50%) than in others (14%, P = 0.008). Patients' barriers included mostly patient preference (12 papers), concern about information and/or consent (11 papers), worry about uncertainty (7 papers), and/or relationship with medical team (7 papers). Concerning clinicians, incompatibility of protocol with normal practice (nine papers), problems in complying with the protocol (eight papers), and/or consent procedure (eight papers) were the most reported factors. The remaining factors mostly relied on specific groups of patients (30 papers), notably age of patients (18 papers) and/or minority population (11 papers, all from the USA). Strategies to overcome these barriers are needed and should be carefully evaluated.

The role of physician characteristics in clinical trial acceptance: testing pathways of influence

Eight videotaped vignettes were developed that assessed the effects of three physician-related experimental variables (in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design) on clinical trial (CT) knowledge, video knowledge, information processing, CT beliefs, affective evaluations (attitudes), and CT acceptance. It was hypothesized that the physician variables (community versus academic-based affiliation, enthusiastic versus neutral presentation of the trial, and new versus previous relationship with the patient) would serve as communication cues that would interrupt message processing, leading to lower knowledge gain but more positive beliefs, attitudes, and CT acceptance. A total of 262 women (161 survivors and 101 controls) participated in the study. The manipulated variables primarily influenced the intermediary variables of post-test CT beliefs and satisfaction with information rather than knowledge or information processing. Multiple regression results indicated that CT acceptance was associated with positive post-CT beliefs, a lower level of information processing, satisfaction with information, and control status. Based on these results, CT acceptance does not appear to be based on a rational decision-making model; this has implications for both the ethics of informed consent and research conceptual models.

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature

Phase 1 (P1) trials are vital to the development of cancer treatments; however, the patients involved in these trials are unlikely to receive any therapeutic benefit, and there are significant possibilities that they will experience serious side effects. Ethical requirements stipulate that patients must be adequately informed before they consent to participate in P1 trials. This review focuses on studies that have measured patient comprehension of information given during the informed consent process of P1 cancer trials. Patients consenting to participate in P1 trials currently have a limited understanding of trial purpose, an unrealistic expectation of the benefits and risks associated with trial participation and a questionable appreciation of their right to abstain or withdraw. Health care professionals recruiting to P1 trials need clear and practical guidelines and training packages designed to ensure that all details of P1 trials are communicated effectively to eligible patients.

Quality of life as an endpoint in Phase I oncology clinical trials of novel chemotherapy drugs

This paper examines the rationale, utility and feasibility of including quality of life as an outcome measure in Phase I trials of new applications of chemotherapy drugs. Typically, Phase I trials in oncology are designed to assess safety and maximal tolerated dose; however, it is argued that when subjectively assessed, self perceived quality of life is as important as physical toxicity. The outcomes of studies that have applied quality-of-life assessment in Phase I trials are reviewed, and recommendations are made for future research based on both methodologic and practical considerations.

A randomised controlled trial of nurse-managed trial conclusion following early phase cancer trial participation

The effect of a nurse-managed intervention, for early phase cancer trial participants at trial conclusion, on psychosocial outcomes was evaluated at two cancer centres in the Midlands, England using a randomised controlled trial. It involved 117 patients who were participating in an early phase cancer clinical trial. It was a nurse-managed trial exit, which included a trial exit interview, trial feedback information leaflet and telephone follow-up compared with standard care at trial conclusion. Psychological distress at 1 week and 4-6 weeks post-trial conclusion, patient's knowledge and understanding and patient's satisfaction were assessed. The results showed there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding scores for anxiety and depression at time one and time two. There is some suggestion that the intervention reduced anxiety from trial conclusion to follow-up (P=0.27). Patients in both groups felt they had contributed to cancer research through trial participation. However, intervention patients were more likely to feel that they knew how the trial was going (P<0.001), knew how other people in the trial were doing (P=0.001), had all the feedback they needed about the trial they took part in (P<0.01) and knew how they would be followed up (P=0.02). Patient satisfaction with the intervention was high (median score=4.5 where 5 is greatest satisfaction). In conclusion, nurse-managed trial conclusion led to positive outcomes for patients who had recently completed a clinical trial.

An increasing number of qualitative research papers in oncology and palliative care: does it mean a thorough development of the methodology of research?

BACKGROUND

In the second half of the nineties, a scientific debate about the usefulness of qualitative research in medicine began in the main medical journals as well as the amount of "qualitative" papers published on peer reviewed journals has noticeably increased during these last years. Nevertheless the label of qualitative methodology has been assigned to an heterogeneous collection of studies. Some of them show a complete awareness of the specificity of this kind of research, while others are still largely influenced by the quantitative paradigm prevailing in the medical field. The concern with the rigour and credibility of qualitative methods has lead to the development of a number of checklist for assessing qualitative research. The purposes of this review were to describe the quality of the development of qualitative research in the medical field, focusing on oncology and palliative care, and to discuss the applicability of a descriptive checklist.

METHODS

A review was conducted on Medline and PsycINFO databases. On the basis of their abstract, papers found have been classified considering: publication year, kind of journal, paper type, data gathering method, sample size and declared methodological approach. A sub sample of the previous papers was than selected and their methodological characteristics were evaluated based on a descriptive checklist.

RESULTS

351 abstracts and 26 full papers were analysed. An increase over time in the number of qualitative studies is evident. While most of the papers before 1999 were published on nursing journals (43%), afterwards also medical journals were largely represented. Psychological journals increased from 7% to 12%. The 22% of studies used a sample size lower than 15 and the 15% did not specify the sample size in the abstract. The methodological approach was also often not specified and the percentage increased in the second time period (from 73% to 80%). Grounded theory was the most employed methodological approach while phenomenology shows a decrease. Interview remains the most used data gathering method in both periods, even if it shows a 10% reductions, while focus group and multiple methods application both increase to 12%. The use of the descriptive checklist on the full text of the 26 papers shows that all the items present a larger percentage of satisfaction after 1 January 1999 than it was for the paper published before 1999. There seems to be two different types of quality criteria: specific and unspecific. The first ones mainly refer to qualitative paradigm (such as the relationship with the subject of research or evidence about how subjects perceived the research) and they are often not satisfied. In contrast unspecific criteria (such as the connection to an existing body of knowledge or systematic data gathering) which are mainly shared with the quantitative paradigm are more frequently satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

In oncology and palliative care the publication of qualitative studies increased during the nineties, reaching its peak in around 2000. The use of descriptive checklists even if it was not easy to apply, allows researchers to get a deeper insight into methodological facets that a global judgement may leave out.

Can a brief video intervention improve breast cancer clinical trial knowledge and beliefs?

A total of 262 women in the USA (161 breast cancer survivors and 101 controls) were exposed to a video vignette using modeling in which a physician discussed the concept of a clinical trial (CT) with a woman who was in the process of making a treatment decision. A pretest-post-test design was used and improvements in clinical trial knowledge and beliefs were assessed. Results indicate that video modeling is a powerful tool for increasing CT knowledge (pretest mean=41.5% correct, post-test mean=77.5% correct) but not for improving CT beliefs. Increased clinical trial knowledge, as measured by change scores, was associated with white race, lower levels of education and pretest breast cancer knowledge, more negative pretest CT beliefs, and a higher estimate of the lifetime probability that a woman will have breast cancer. When pretest CT knowledge was added to the analysis using hierarchical multiple regression, all variables except white race became nonsignificant; an increase in CT knowledge was associated with having lower pretest CT knowledge. Results indicate that the effects of low education, low breast cancer knowledge, and biased probability assessment were mediated through the pretest score. An increase in post-test positive CT beliefs was associated with older age, thinking about breast cancer less often, and having lower pretest CT knowledge in the total sample. When pretest CT beliefs was added to the analysis using hierarchical multiple regression, all other variables became nonsignificant; an increase in CT beliefs was associated with having lower pretest CT beliefs, again indicating mediation of the effects of other variables.