A qualitative assessment of the experience of participating in a cancer-related clinical trial

The journey of patients in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative meta-synthesis on experiences and perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize findings from qualitative studies focusing on adult cancer patients and their experiences and perspectives on clinical trials.

METHODS

A meta-synthesis was conducted on the literature retrieved from Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and PsycInfo databases. Patient quotes from papers were coded line-by-line using Nvivo software, and themes were created.

RESULTS

45 papers were included. Three large themes were identified based on the timeline of trials: (1) "pre-trial participation" includes sub-themes regarding informational needs, experience with the decision, and representations. (2) "Ongoing trial" includes subthemes covering supportive care, practical and psycho-physical burdens, identity and comparison with others, and the importance of maintaining hope. (3) "Post-trial," with subthemes covering comprehension of results and attitudes towards data sharing, perception of being left unattended, and hindsight and regretful thoughts.

CONCLUSION

This work emphasizes the importance of contextualizing patient experiences and holistically viewing trials. Additionally, this review stresses that patient narratives in the post-trial period are underrepresented in the literature.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further research should prioritize the post-trial stage to enhance patients' psychological well-being and address concerns such as regret to reduce trial dropout rates. Emphasizing patient connections, providing clear trial-related information, and offering remote participation options, particularly for rural patients, are crucial steps in improving patient experience and trial adherence.

The effect of psychologically informed practice with behavioural graded activity in cancer survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of psychologically informed practice (PIP) with behavioural graded activity (BGA) compared to (1) waitlist controls (WLC), (2) other interventions (OI), (3) PIP alone or (4) BGA alone in cancer patients and survivors (CPaS).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were screened for randomised controlled trials encompassing BGA + PIP in CPaS. Effect sizes were inventoried for outcomes regarding physical activity (PA), quality of life (QoL) and debilitating symptoms (DS), which were assessed at four time points: post-intervention (PI), follow-up F1 (1 to 3 months), F2 (4 to 6 months) and F3 (> 6 months). The quality of the evidence was classified by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were found eligible, comprising 4330 participants. Significant effects with low heterogeneity of PIP + BGA comparing to WLC were found for anxiety (SMD - 1.29 [-1.71; - 0.86]), depression (SMD - 0.79 [- 1.10; - 0.48]), functional impairment (SMD - 0.72 [- 0.95; - 0.50]), PA (self-reported: (SMD - 0.58 [- 0.84; - 0.32]) and objectively measured: (SMD - 0.51 [- 0.90; - 0.13])) and social impairment (SMD - 0.33 [- 0.58; - 0.08]). When comparing PIP + BGA to OI, fatigue (SMD - 0.35 [- 0.51; - 0.20]) and PA (SMD - 0.26 [- 0.41; - 0.11]) at PI, and fatigue (SMD - 0.34 [- 0.58; - 0.10]) at F1 were found significant with low heterogeneity. No significant effects were observed in the meta-analyses of studies comparing PIP + BGA to BGA or PIP alone.

CONCLUSIONS

PIP with BGA has a favourable effect on DS, PA and QoL in CPaS when compared to non-behavioural interventions such as WLC, usual care and education. However, further research is needed on 'how' and 'when' PIP + BGA should be provided in cancer rehabilitation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

PIP + BGA has the potential to facilitate CPaS to reach the recommended amount of PA and reduce DS.

Palliative care integration for patients on phase I cancer clinical trials

Early integration of palliative care (PC) is recommended as standard of care for patients with advanced cancer. However, challenges remain for both medical oncologists and PC specialists in knowing how to best integrate PC within the dynamic landscape of cancer therapeutics and drug development. Over the last several years in oncology, the success of immunotherapy and molecularly targeted agents has led to a greater demand for novel agents and expansion of objectives of early phase clinical trials. This has in turn created more nuance when discussing prognosis and supporting patients with advanced disease and their caregivers. This review article presents the current literature to support the integration of PC within investigational oncology, as a mechanism to address the evolving needs of patients and caregivers, during and beyond participation on phase I cancer clinical trials.

Effect of research participation versus usual clinical care in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare illness perception (IP), pain, functional level and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) between patients with musculoskeletal pain who participate versus those who do not participate in clinical research projects.

METHODS

Data were collected between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 in patients visiting the Outpatient Osteoarthritis Clinic at Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, as part of either clinical research or regular treatment. Questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 10-18 months. Major outcome measure was the change from baseline to follow-up in the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) item 'Average pain'. Secondary outcome measures included The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ), measured only at baseline, the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L), the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and PainDETECT.

RESULTS

1495 patients were included with 358 (24%) categorised as research participants (exposed) and 1137 (76%) being non-participants (unexposed). The baseline B-IPQ item scores were generally more favourable in the exposed group with statistically significant standardised differences (SD) of 0.2-0.3. Similarly, an SD of 0.3 on the EQ-5D-3L score indicated a better HR-QoL in the exposed group. At follow-up, 24% in the exposed group and 27% in the unexposed group, completed the questionnaires. The mean BPI-sf Average pain between-group difference was: -0.01 points (95% CI: -0.6 to 0.6). Similar clinically irrelevant differences were seen in the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among musculoskeletal pain patients, research participants report more positive IP and better HR-QoL than non-participants. No additional effect of research participation was found in any outcome over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03785561.

Patient communication and experiences in cancer clinical drug trials: a mixed-method study at a specialist clinical trials unit

BACKGROUND

As cancer therapies increase in their complexity, effective communication among patients, physicians, and research staff is critical for optimal clinical trial management. Currently, we understand little about on-trial communication practices and patient trial experiences over time. This mixed-method study explored patient experiences of participating in a clinical drug trial at different time points, focussing on patient communication with trial staff.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in clinical drug trials conducted at the Parkville Cancer Clinical Trials Unit were invited to complete a tailored online survey and/or a qualitative interview. Patients were recruited to three cohorts based on time since the first trial treatment: new (≥ 1 to ≤ 13 weeks), mid- (≥ 14 to ≤ 26 weeks), and long-term (≥ 52 weeks) trial patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses. Interview data were analysed thematically with a team-based approach. Survey and interview data were integrated at the intepretation stage.

RESULTS

From May to June 2021, 210 patients completed a survey (response rate 64%, 60% male), 20 completed interviews (60% male), and 18 completed both. More long-term trial patients (46%) participated than new (29%) and mid-trial patients (26%). Survey data showed high (> 90%) patient satisfaction with the provision of trial information and communication with trial staff across trial stages, and many reported trial experiences as above and beyond standard care. Interview data indicated that written trial information could be overwhelming, and verbal communication with the staff and physicians was highly valued, especially for enrolment and side effect management among long-term patients. Patients described the key points along the clinical trial trajectory that merit close attention: clear and well-communicated randomisation practices, reliable pathways for side effect reporting and prompt response from the trial staff, and end-of-trial transition management to avoid a sense of abandonment.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported high overall satisfaction with trial management but outlined key pinch points requiring improved communication practices. Establishing a range of effective communication practices among trial staff and physicians with patients in cancer clinical trials may have a wide range of positive effects on patient accrual, retention, and satisfaction.

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.

GEOGRAPHIC ACCESS DISPARITIES TO CLINICAL TRIALS IN RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY IN THE UNITED STATES

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To identify geographic and socioeconomic variables predictive of residential proximity to retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) clinical trial locations.

METHODS

This cross-sectional epidemiological study used census tract-level data from three national public data sets and trial-level data from ClinicalTrials.gov. Socioeconomic predictors of driving distance and time to the nearest ROP clinical trial location were identified. Primary outcomes were time >60 minutes and distance >60 miles traveled to the nearest ROP clinical trial site.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that residents were more likely to travel >60 minutes to the nearest ROP clinical trial site if they lived in census tracts that were rural (adjusted odds ratio 1.20, P = 0.0002), had higher percentages of the population living ≤ federal poverty level (fourth quartile vs. first quartile, adjusted odds ratio 1.19, P < 0.0001), or had less education (associate vs. bachelor's degree, adjusted odds ratio 1.01, P <0.007). By contrast, counties with higher percentages of births with birth weight <1500 g (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, P = 0.0062) were less likely to travel >60 minutes. Similar variables predicted travel distance.

CONCLUSION

Although counties with higher incidences of very low-birth-weight infants were closer to ROP clinical trial sites, residents living in rural and low-income census tracts had significantly greater travel burdens.

Oncology patients' experiences in experimental medicine cancer trials: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of experimental cancer medicine (ECM) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The study's design was qualitative. Two focus groups with patients were undertaken followed by semistructured interviews, to explore patients' experiences of ECM clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

A regional cancer centre (tertiary care) in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve patients (aged 52-79) participated in one of the two focus groups and 22 patients (aged 42-83) participated in interviews.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients' experiences of an ECM trial.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified from the analysis: decision making, information needs, the experience of trial participation and impact of trial participation. Subthemes are presented in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

To make fully informed decisions about trial participation, patients required the simplification of trial information and wanted more information about side effects, their response to trial treatment and the overall trial progress throughout the trial. Patients highlighted the need for improvement for the support provided to their family and friends.

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.

Exploring the experiences of stroke patients treated with transcranial magnetic stimulation for upper limb recovery: a qualitative study

Background

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatments have shown promise in improving arm recovery in stroke patients. Currently, little is known about patients’ experiences with repetitive TMS treatment, and this lack of knowledge may affect optimal implementation in clinical practice. The aim of this explorative study was to gain insight in the perceived effects and experiences of the design and delivery of a rTMS treatment for upper limb recovery from the perspectives of stroke patients.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a specialized rehabilitation center. Data were collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 13 stroke patients who completed a 10-day rTMS intervention for upper limb recovery. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

The major themes that emerged from the patients’ feedback were the following: positive experiences of the treatment (experienced physical effects, comfort, therapeutic relationship, receiving information, learning about the brain, no burden of added rTMS treatment session, no unpleasant aspects), concerns (effects of stimulation of the brain, equipment, logistics), general experience of recovery, experienced psychological effects (grateful, sense of purpose, recovery as extra motivation to exercise, disappointment and hope of group allocation), and motivation to participate (personal benefit and cognitions, altruism). Important components related to the positive experience of the design and delivery of the treatment included comfort (i.e. moment of relaxation) and the sensation of a painless treatment without side-effects. Key concerns included uncertainty and anxiety about possible negative consequences and group allocation.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that rTMS is well accepted by stroke patients with an upper limb paresis. Besides the expectation of a therapeutic benefit, the patients reported various psychological effects. Positive experiences, such as the provision of a short moment of relaxation each day, could have practical implications for clinical stroke rehabilitation settings aimed at improving patient satisfaction. Explanation about and feedback from routine motor recovery progression monitoring at fixed times post-stroke is also valued by patients. Negative emotions may be limited or avoided by transparent and recurrent information delivery in future trials.

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.

A step towards equitable clinical trial recruitment: a protocol for the development and preliminary testing of an online prostate cancer health information and clinical trial matching tool

Background

Recruitment of a diverse participant pool to cancer clinical trials is an essential component of clinical research as it improves the generalizability of findings. Investigating and piloting novel recruitment strategies that take advantage of ubiquitous digital technologies has become an important component of facilitating broad recruitment and addressing inequities in clinical trial participation. Equitable and inclusive recruitment improves generalizability of clinical trial outcomes, benefiting patients, clinicians, and the research community. The increasing prevalence of online connectivity in the USA and use of the Internet as a resource for medical information provides an opportunity for digital recruitment strategies in cancer clinical trials. This study aims to measure the acceptability, preliminary estimates of efficacy, and feasibility of the Trial Library intervention, an Internet-based cancer clinical trial matching tool. This study will also examine the extent to which the Trial Library website, designed to address the linguistic and literacy needs of broader patient populations, influences patient-initiated conversations with physicians about clinical trial participation.

Methods

This is a study protocol for a non-randomized, single-arm pilot study. This is a mixed methods study design that utilizes the statistical analysis of quantitative survey data and the qualitative analysis of interview data to assess the participant experience with the Trial Library intervention. This study will examine (1) acceptability as a measure of participant satisfaction with this intervention, (2) preliminary measure of efficacy as a measure of proportion of participants with documented clinical trial discussion in the electronic medical record, and (3) feasibility of the intervention as a measure of duration of clinical visit.

Discussion

The principles that informed the design of the Trial Library intervention aim to be generalizable to clinical trials across many disease contexts. From the ground up, this intervention is built to be inclusive of the linguistic, literacy, and technological needs of underrepresented patient populations. This study will collect essential preliminary data prior to a multi-site randomized clinical trial of the Trial Library intervention.

Trial registration

This study has received institutional approval from the Committee of Human Subjects Research at the University of California, San Francisco.

Patient experiences of participation in a radical thoracic surgical trial: findings from the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery Trial 2 (MARS 2)

BACKGROUND

The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery Trial (MARS 2) aims to evaluate a surgical procedure by comparing chemotherapy and surgery against chemotherapy alone. The pilot study for MARS 2 evaluated the viability of recruitment. Challenges have been reported in conducting clinical research into thoracic surgical treatments and evidence is required to improve our understanding of patient experiences of trial procedures, trial treatments and the factors that influence participation.

METHODS

This longitudinal qualitative study was nested within the MARS 2 pilot. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 participants in the MARS 2 trial. Interviews were conducted post-randomisation, post-surgery (surgery arm) and at 6 and 12 months. Altogether, 41 interviews were carried out. The data were analysed using framework techniques.

RESULTS

Challenges were identified regarding the volume and complexity of information given to participants, and their understanding of clinical equipoise and randomisation. Factors influencing participation included having an opportunity to undergo surgery, a self-assessment of their ability to cope with trial treatments, maintaining a positive approach and altruism. Obstacles included the logistics of traveling for treatment in an unfamiliar setting. Negative consequences of trial participation included increased uncertainty amplified by multiple care providers and unclear transition arrangements after the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' descriptions provided insights that have implications for care for mesothelioma trial patients. The need for healthcare staff to be alert to the potential for misunderstanding, particularly when presenting treatment options, was identified. Patients perceived and derived benefits from taking part in the trial but experienced some negative consequences. These should be anticipated and managed proactively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272 . Registered on 20 January 2014.

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.

Understanding Treatment Burden and Quality of Life Impact of Participating in an Early-Phase Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

Early-phase clinical trials (EPTs) have led to new, more effective treatment options for children with cancer. Despite the extensive use of EPTs in pediatric oncology, little is known about parent and child experiences during EPT participation. The purposes of this pilot study were to assess the feasibility and preliminary results of having children with cancer and their parents complete measures of treatment burden and quality of life (QOL) concurrent with EPT participation.

METHODS

In this descriptive, longitudinal, pilot study, parents and children were followed for the first 60 days of an EPT. Feasibility was assessed by participant enrollment and retention and completion of measures. Measures completed included the following: demographic form (completed at baseline); Diary of Trial Experiences to capture treatment burden (completed ongoing); and PedsQL™ Quality of Life Inventories, Cancer Modules, and Family Impact Module (completed at baseline, post-first disease evaluation, and off-study). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Feasibility goals of enrollment, retention, and measure completion were partially met. Preliminary treatment burden and QOL results are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

While QOL assessments may provide insight into EPT experiences, future studies need to be conducted at multiple sites and enrollment goals must account for participant attrition.

The experience of adolescents participating in a randomised clinical trial in the field of mental health: a qualitative study

Background

This descriptive study aimed to investigate adolescents’ motivations for participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), to explore the understanding that the young people had regarding a number of aspects of the trial design, to examine whether or not they found participation in the trial to be acceptable and what affected this, and to identify whether and how the young people felt that their participation in the RCT impacted on their experience of therapy and on therapeutic change.

Methods

Seventy-six adolescents who were taking part in a large-scale RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of psychological therapies for depression were interviewed at two time-points after completing therapy. The semi-structured interviews, which included a focus on the young people’s experience of the research study, were analysed using framework analysis.

Results

The vast majority of adolescents found it acceptable to participate in the clinical trial, and many agreed to participate for reasons of ‘conditional altruism’. However consent was often given without great understanding of the key elements of the trial, including the difference between treatment arms and the randomisation process. Although the adolescents were largely positive about their experiences from taking part, the study raises questions about whether clinical outcomes may be influenced by participation in the research elements of the trial.

Conclusions

Although adolescents are under-represented in clinical trials, those who do participate are generally positive about the experience; however, careful thought needs to be given to key elements of the trial design and the potential impact of the research participation on clinical outcomes.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN83033550. Registered on 15 October 2009.

Interventions to improve patient understanding of cancer clinical trial participation: a systematic review

Patient misunderstanding of cancer clinical trial participation is identified as a critical issue and researchers have developed and tested a variety of interventions to improve patient understanding. This systematic review identified nine papers published between 2000 and 2013, to evaluate the effects of interventions to improve patient understanding of cancer clinical trial participation. Types of interventions included audio-visual information, revised written information and a communication training workshop. Interventions were conducted alone or in combination with other forms of information provision. The nine papers, all with methodological limitations, reported mixed effects on a small range of outcomes regarding improved patient understanding of cancer clinical trial participation. The methodological limitations included: (1) the intervention development process was poorly described; (2) only a small element of the communication process was addressed; (3) studies lacked evidence regarding what information is essential and critical to enable informed consent; (4) studies lacked reliable and valid outcome measures to show that patients are sufficiently informed to provide consent; and (5) the intervention development process lacked a theoretical framework. Future research needs to consider these factors when developing interventions to improve communication and patient understanding during the informed consent process.

Peruvian Female Sex Workers' Ethical Perspectives on Their Participation in an HPV Vaccine Clinical Trial

This study examined female sex workers' evaluation of ethically relevant experiences of participating in an HPV4 vaccine clinical trial conducted in Lima, Peru (the Sunflower Study). The Sunflower Study provided all participants with HPV testing, treatment for those testing positive, and access to the vaccine for all testing negative. Themes that emerged from content analysis of interviews with 16 former participants included the importance of respectful treatment and access to healthcare not otherwise available and concerns about privacy protections, the potential for HIV stigma, and poststudy abandonment.

Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care

Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.

Evaluation of patient enrollment in oncology phase I clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

For anticancer drug development, it is crucial that patients participate in early-phase clinical trials. The main aim of this study was to gain insight into the motivations and other variables influencing patients in their decision to participate in phase I oncology trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a period of 25 months, all patients who were informed about (specific) phase I trials in our cancer center were retrospectively included in this study. Data on providing informed consent and final phase I enrollment were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 365 patients, with a median age of 59 years and a median World Health Organization performance status score of 1, were evaluated. The majority of patients (71%) were pretreated with systemic therapy, with a median of two lines. After specific study information had been given, 145 patients (40%) declined informed consent, 54% of them mainly because of low expectations regarding treatment benefits and concerns about potential side effects. Patients who had received previous systemic therapy consented more frequently than others. After initial consent, 61 patients (17%) still did not receive study treatment, mostly because of secondary withdrawal of consent or rapid clinical deterioration prior to first dosing.

DISCUSSION

After specific referral to our hospital for participation in early clinical trials, only 44% of all patients who were informed about a specific phase I trial eventually participated. Reasons for both participation and nonparticipation were diverse. Patient participation rates could be improved by forming an experienced and dedicated study team.

Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences

INTRODUCTION

Participants' perceptions of their research experiences provide valuable measures of ethical treatment, yet no validated instruments exist to measure these experiences. We conducted focus groups of research participants and professionals as the initial step in developing a validated instrument.

METHODS

Research participants enrolled in 12 focus groups, consisting of: (1) individuals with disorders undergoing interventions; (2) in natural history studies; or (3) healthy volunteers. Research professionals participated in six separate groups of: (1) institutional review board members, ethicists, and Research Subject Advocates; (2) research nurses/coordinators; or (3) investigators. Focus groups used standard methodologies.

RESULTS

Eighty-five participants and 29 professionals enrolled at eight academic centers. Altruism and personal relevance of the research were commonly identified motivators; financial compensation was less commonly mentioned. Participants were satisfied with informed consent processes but disappointed if not provided test results, or study outcomes. Positive relationships with research teams were valued highly. Research professionals were concerned about risks, undue influence, and informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants join studies for varied, complex reasons, notably altruism and personal relevance. They value staff relationships, health gains, new knowledge, and compensation, and expect professionalism and good organization. On the basis of these insights, we propose specific actions to enhance participant recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

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.