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

Reflections on the opportunities and challenges of applying experience-based co-design (EBCD) to phase 1 clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a multi-stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co-design, in the specific context of early-phase clinical trials.

METHODS

We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care.

RESULTS

We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person-centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early-phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations.

CONCLUSION

Integrating EBCD into early-phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person-centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials.

Time Toxicity Experienced by Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs) are designed to determine optimal dosing, tolerability, and preliminary activity of novel cancer therapeutics. Little is known about the time that patients spend interacting with the health care system (eg, time toxicity) while participating in these studies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 to obtain baseline characteristics and number of health care-associated days, defined as all inpatient and outpatient visits while on trial. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of increased time toxicity, defined as the proportion of health care-associated days among total days on trial. For ease of interpretation, we created a dichotomous variable, with high time toxicity defined as ≥20% health care-associated days during time on trial and used regression models to evaluate relationships between time toxicity and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 408 EP-CT participants (mean age, 60.5 years [standard deviation, SD, 12.6]; 56.5% female; 88.2% White; 96.0% non-Hispanic), patients had an average of 22.5% health care-associated days while on trial (SD, 13.8%). Those with GI (B = 0.07; P = .002), head/neck (B = 0.09; P = .004), and breast (B = 0.06; P = .015) cancers and those with worse performance status (B = 0.04; P = .017) and those receiving targeted therapies (B = 0.04; P = .014) experienced higher time toxicity. High time toxicity was associated with decreased disease response rates (odds ratio, 0.07; P < .001), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 2.16; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of EP-CT participants, patients spent more than one-fifth of days on trial with health care contact. We identified characteristics associated with higher time toxicity and found that high toxicity correlated with worse clinical outcomes. These data could help inform patient-clinician discussions about EP-CTs, guide future trial design, and identify at-risk patients.

Qualitative evaluation of motives for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a French comprehensive cancer center: the PALPHA study

PURPOSE

The integration of palliative care (PC) into oncological management is recommended well before the end of life. It improves quality of life and symptom control and reduces the aggressiveness of end-of-life care. However, its appropriate timing is still debated. Entry into an early-phase clinical trial (ECT) represents hopes for the patient when standard treatments have failed. It is an opportune moment to integrate PC to preserve the patient's general health status. The objective of this study was to evaluate the motives for acceptance or refusal of early PC management in patients included in an ECT.

METHODS

Patients eligible to enter an ECT were identified and concomitant PC was proposed. All patients received exploratory interviews conducted by a researcher. Their contents were analyzed in a double-blind thematic analysis with a self-determination model.

RESULTS

Motives for acceptance (PC acceptors: n = 27) were both intrinsic (e.g., pain relief, psychological support, anticipation of the future) and extrinsic (e.g., trust in the medical profession, for a relative, to support the advance of research). Motives for refusal (PC refusers: n = 3) were solely intrinsic (e.g., PC associated with death, negative representation of psychological support, no need for additional care, claim of independence).

CONCLUSIONS

The motives of acceptors and refusers are not internalized in the same way and call for different autonomy needs. Acceptors and refusers are influenced by opposite representations of PC and a different perception of mixed management.

Digital health interventions for all? Examining inclusivity across all stages of the digital health intervention research process

Digital interventions offer many possibilities for improving health, as remote interventions can enhance reach and access to underserved groups of society. However, research evaluating digital health interventions demonstrates that such technologies do not equally benefit all and that some in fact seem to reinforce a "digital health divide." By better understanding these potential pitfalls, we may contribute to narrowing the digital divide in health promotion. The aim of this article is to highlight and reflect upon study design decisions that might unintentionally enhance inequities across key research stages-recruitment, enrollment, engagement, efficacy/effectiveness, and retention. To address the concerns highlighted, we propose strategies including (1) the standard definition of "effectiveness" should be revised to include a measure of inclusivity; (2) studies should report a broad range of potential inequity indicators of participants recruited, randomized, and retained and should conduct sensitivity analyses examining potential sociodemographic differences for both the effect and engagement of the digital interventions; (3) participants from historically marginalized groups should be involved in the design of study procedures, including those related to recruitment, consent, intervention implementation and engagement, assessment, and retention; (4) eligibility criteria should be minimized and carefully selected and the screening process should be streamlined; (5) preregistration of trials should include recruitment benchmarks for sample diversity and comprehensive lists of sociodemographic characteristics assessed; and (6) studies within trials should be embedded to systematically test recruitment and retention strategies to improve inclusivity. The implementation of these strategies would enhance the ability of digital health trials to recruit, randomize, engage, and retain a broader and more representative population in trials, ultimately minimizing the digital divide and broadly improving population health.

Underrepresentation of Hispanics in clinical trials for liver cancer in the United States over the past 20 years

IMPORTANCE

Accurate representation of racial and ethnic population subgroups in clinical trials is fundamental to ensure universal effectiveness of new therapies as well as to decrease disparities in oncology care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether Hispanic people are underrepresented in Phase I and II clinical trials for liver cancer in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A database search was performed in clinicaltrials.gov for interventional liver cancer studies based only in the US with reported results from September 1, 2002, to February 1, 2023. A total of 37 trials with 963 total patients met inclusion criteria and were included for further analysis. Proportion of total patients by race/ethnicity was calculated for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native subpopulations. The age-adjusted incidence rates of liver and intrahepatic bile duct were acquired from the National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.

RESULTS

Liver cancer incidence rates (per 100,000 people) were highest in Indians/Alaska Native people (18.8 cases) followed by Hispanic people (15.1 cases), then Asian people (12.5 cases), then non-Hispanic black people (11 cases), and non-Hispanic white people (7.5 cases). From a total of 91 phase I or II clinical trials for liver cancer in the US, 41% reported race/ethnicity enrollment data; among these, 62.8% of patients were non-Hispanic White, 15.9% were non-Hispanic black, 8.8% were Hispanic, 12.7% Asian, and 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Less than half of phase I or II clinical trials for liver cancer in the US in the last 20 years reported race/ethnicity data to clinicaltrials.gov. Compared to the relative incidence rate of liver cancer, non-Hispanic black people and Hispanic people are underrepresented in these clinical trials.

Challenges regarding informed consent in recruitment to clinical research: a qualitative study of clinical research nurses' experiences

BACKGROUND

Clinical research nurses (CRNs) have first-hand experience with ethical challenges and play a crucial role in upholding ethical conduct and adherence to the principles of informed consent in clinical research. This study explores the ethical challenges encountered by CRNs in the process of obtaining informed consent for clinical research.

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory design. Semistructured interviews (n = 14) were conducted with diverse CRNs in Sweden. These CRNs covered a wide range of research fields, including pharmaceutical and academic studies, interventions, and observational research, spanning different trial phases, patient categories, and medical conditions. The interviews were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified three main categories: (i) threats to voluntariness, (ii) measures to safeguard voluntariness, and (iii) questionable exclusion of certain groups. CRNs face challenges due to time constraints, rushed decisions, information overload, and excessive reliance on physicians' recommendations. Overestimating therapeutic benefits in stages of advanced illness emerged as a risk to voluntariness. CRNs outlined proactive solutions, such as allowing ample decision-making time and offering support, especially for terminally ill patients. Concerns were also voiced about excluding certain demographics, such as those with language barriers or cognitive impairments.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, upholding ethical research standards requires recognising various factors affecting patient voluntariness. Researchers and CRNs should prioritise refining the informed consent process, overcoming participation challenges, and aligning scientific rigour with personalised care. Additionally, a concerted effort is vital to meet the diverse needs of patient populations, including equitable inclusion of individuals with language barriers or cognitive limitations in clinical studies. These findings have significant implications for enhancing the ethics of clinical research and advancing person-centred care.

Exploring the Decision-Making Process of People Living with HIV Enrolled in Antiretroviral Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Study of Decisions Guided by Trust and Emotions

The informed consent is an ethical and legal requirement for potential participants to enroll in a study. There is ample of evidence that understanding consent information and enrollment is challenging for participants in clinical trials. On the other hand, the reasoning process behind decision-making in HIV clinical trials remains mostly unexplored. This study aims to examine the decision-making process of people living with HIV currently participating in antiretroviral clinical trials and their understanding of informed consent. We conducted a qualitative socio-constructivist study using semi-structured interviews. Eleven participants were selected by purposive sampling in Argentina until data saturation was reached. A content analysis was performed. The findings highlight the fact that some participants decided to enroll on the spot, while others made the decision a few days later. In all cases, the decision was based on different aspects of trust (in doctors, in the clinical research site, in the clinical trials system) but also on emotions associated with HIV and/or treatment. Moreover, while people living with HIV felt truly informed after the consent dialogue with a researcher, consent forms were unintelligible and unfriendly. The immediacy of patient decision-making has rarely been described before. Enrollment in an HIV clinical trial is mainly a trust-based decision but this does not contradict the ethical values of autonomy, voluntariness, non-manipulation, and non-exploitation. Thus, trust is a key issue to be included in reshaping professional practices to ensure the integrity of the informed consent process.

Factors impacting the demonstration of relational autonomy in medical decision-making: A meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Relational autonomy is an alternative concept of autonomy in which an individual is recognized as embedded into society and influenced by relational factors. Social context, including social location, political structure, and social forces, significantly influence an agent to develop and exercise autonomy skills. The relational approach has been applied in clinical practice to identify relational factors impacting patient autonomy and decision-making, yet there is a knowledge gap in how these factors influence the demonstration of relational autonomy in the context of medical decisions of adults.

OBJECTIVE

The present study targeted the existing knowledge of what and how relational factors impact individuals making medical decisions using the theoretical framework of relational autonomy.

METHODS

A meta-synthesis study was utilized. Four electronic databases, including Embase, OVID Medline, CINAHL, and PubMed, were searched, along with gray literature and reference lists, to identify relevant studies.

RESULTS

23 studies reporting 21 qualitative and two mixed-method studies were reviewed. Four themes emerged from the qualitative findings: (1) supportive relationships facilitate an individual's relational autonomy; (2) obtaining comprehensive information from broader sources helps individuals exercise relational autonomy; (3) undue family pressure impedes the exercising of patient relational autonomy; and (4) healthcare providers' dominant voice hampers the demonstration of relational autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying relational autonomy to assist adults in making well-considered decisions is essential. The meta-synthesis suggests establishing a supportive relationship between individuals, healthcare providers, and family. A supportive relationship will allow healthcare providers to make judgments in line with an individual's values and wishes with the aim of promoting relational autonomy. Advance care planning was proposed as the effective solution to obtain a consensus between individuals and their families while respecting an individual's values and preferences. Furthermore, it is considered crucial for healthcare providers to appreciate an individual's values and incorporate their preferences into recommendations.

Trainee Evaluations of Preparedness for Clinical Trials in Medical Oncology-A National Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

A standardized approach to the education of clinical trial investigators across Canadian medical oncology (MO) subspecialty training does not exist. With training programs transitioning to competency-based medical education (CBME), studies assessing education practices and competence are paramount to enhancing trainee education. This study aimed to determine whether current education practices in MO subspecialty training programs in Canada prepare trainees for participating in clinical trials as an investigator.

METHODS

From November 2021 to February 2022 a national, bilingual, online questionnaire to understand trainee experiences with self-perceived competence, preparedness, and willingness to participate in clinical trials as investigators was conducted. MO trainees, fellows, and new-to-practice physicians who completed an MO subspecialty training program in Canada were included.

RESULTS

A total of 41 responses were received (response rate: 15%). Formal training in how to participate in clinical trials as an investigator was reported by 73% of respondents. At the end of training, 65% of respondents rated competence in clinical trials as fair/poor and 74% rated preparedness in conducting clinical trials as fair/poor. Correlation analysis determined that in-clinic teaching in clinical trials trended toward improved self-evaluations of competence and preparedness (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in Canada to assess competencies in any residency training program since the establishment of CBME. Training in conducting clinical trials is highly variable across MO programs in Canada, with most trainees finding current practices not translating into self-perceived competence and preparedness. Further assessment into how to produce competent clinical trial investigators is warranted.

The motivation of breast cancer patients to participate in a national randomized control trial

PURPOSE

Clinical trials are essential for development of better cancer care. Therefore, patient willingness to participate in these trials is important. The aim of this study was to assess motivation and thoughts of breast cancer patients concerning participation in a clinical trial.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients participated in two semi-structed interviews about participating in a clinical trial testing the efficacy of cryotherapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in breast cancer patients treated with paclitaxel. The interviews took place before and after the intervention and were coded and categorized following the steps in Braun & Clarke's thematic analysis to identify motivational factors and experiential themes.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes were identified: (1) reasons to participate in the trial, (2) personal resources, (3) safety, and (4) experience of the randomization. The most frequent reason for participating in the trial was to support research and help others, but many also participated hoping to receive the intervention treatment. The study showed that a surplus of personal resources played an important role when the patients decided to participate in the trial. Differences were found between patients belonging to the intervention and the control group in relation to these themes. Finally, both groups experienced the extra examinations received during the trial as an additional source of safety.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study found different factors influencing the experience of participating in a clinical trial, e.g., intervention-status, personal resources, and safety. This knowledge can be valuable when planning future clinical trials involving breast cancer patients.

Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Existing research on the perspectives of patients with cancer and health care professionals indicates that patient decision making on cancer clinical trial participation is a complex process and may be poorly understood, possibly compromising their decision to participate. This systematic review investigates interventions that support patients in their decision-making processes regarding whether to participate or not and assesses the qualities of the interventions, measures used and related outcomes.

METHODS

Six databases were systematically searched and only studies evaluating interventions that support the decision making of adult patients offered to enter a cancer clinical trial were included. Ten articles met the criteria and were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

The research focus of the included studies reflected the multifactorial nature of what constitutes support for patient decision making in terms of entering a cancer clinical trial. However, most interventions were based on the hypothesis that more information leads to support in decision making, and did not take other factors, such as the relationship to the clinical staff or relatives, the patients' strong hope for therapeutic benefit or other existential needs into account. The interventions were primarily based on a specific tool, executed once, which seems to imply that decisions need only to be supported once and not at several time points throughout the decision process, and did not assess the importance of a patient's family- or social relations. Moreover, few interventions focused on the patients' counselling experience or assessed patient preferences in relation to decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate a lack of research on interventions to support patients' decision making that takes other factors, apart from improving knowledge of trials, into account. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of decision support interventions to improve the experience of support in adult patients with cancer. Interventions that take patient preferences in relation to decision making and the social context of decision processes into account need to be developed and assessed.

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of—more or less well-justified—ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical “spine” of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical “skeleton” of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

"It All Depends": Patient and Decision Partner Experiences in Cancer Clinical Trial Decision-Making

While the supporting role of families and friends has been widely recognized in cancer care, little data exist on how they influence patients' decisions regarding clinical trial participation, accounting for patients' decisional preferences. The goal of our study was to examine the process of clinical trial decision-making from the perspective of adults with cancer and their decision partners. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 decision partners-family and friends engaged in the medical decision-making. Themes included: (1) having the ability and confidence to make decisions; (2) gaining insight about clinical trials; (3) trusting someone in the process; and (4) realizing readiness and context. Our findings will enhance understanding of how patients make clinical trial decisions based on decisional preferences from the perspectives of patients and decision partners. The findings may also help to increase clinician awareness and inclusion of decision partners in conversations regarding clinical trials.

The psychosocial responses of patients in cancer clinical trials: are they a barrier to participation?

Introduction:

This paper aims to discuss the psychosocial concomitants with involvement in oncology clinical trials, focusing on barriers that can impact upon participation. It will conclude with some recommendations for strategies to address potential psychosocial barriers with the aim of increasing trial participation rates.

Materials and methods:

A literature search was carried out using CINAHL, PubMed and EMCare databases with the following keywords for filtering: psychological distress, clinical trials, participation and oncology. The final selection of papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review was manually subjected to Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for relevance.

Results:

Thirteen papers were included in the review. The dominant theme within the literature is psychosocial obstacles to oncology clinical trial participation. Five key barriers were identified: anxiety and fear; ethnicity and social background; tensions between scientific objectives and personal motivations to participation; tensions between personal benefits versus altruism; carer perspectives.

Conclusions:

The key barriers discussed led to the identification of a set of strategies to help mediate conflicting tensions and motivations of trial enrolment with a view to increasing participation rates. Further prospective research garnering primary data investigating both the psychological and psychosocial factors influencing cancer clinical trial participation for patients needs to be undertaken.

Family caregivers support their patient's decision to participate in a phase 1 clinical trial: Weighing the pros and cons, bearing the costs

OBJECTIVES

When patients with advanced cancer pursue phase 1 clinical trials, family caregivers are impacted as they adopt new roles and responsibilities in time-pressured, uncertain circumstances. This study explored the nature of the caregivers' participation in patients' decision to pursue phase 1 clinical trials and the early impact of the decision on the caregiver.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 family caregivers of advanced cancer patients who had agreed to participate in phase 1 clinical trials. They were coded for information about the caregiver's relationship with the patient, typical style of decision-making together, understanding of the patient's prognosis and trial, contributions to decision-making and the initial impacts of the trial on the caregiver. Codes illuminating the research questions were grouped into categories and themes, compared across transcripts and examined against the literature.

RESULTS

Caregivers unequivocally supported the patients' decision to pursue the phase 1 trial as they hoped that the patient would derive medical benefit from the trial. They withheld their opinions and fears about the trial from the patients to support patient autonomy during the decision-making process. The patient's decision to participate increased the caregivers' burdens and deprived them of time spent on pleasurable activities at end of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Respecting the patients' personal autonomy, caregivers supported the trial, despite the complex caregiving required. As the success of phase 1 trials relies on caregiver involvement, it is imperative that healthcare professionals be sensitized to the support needs of these caregivers.

Reasons for acceptance and refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a regional comprehensive cancer centre in France: protocol for a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

A few studies have highlighted the potential synergy between early palliative care and inclusion in an early-phase clinical trial that may improve quality of life, reduce symptoms of exhaustion related to the side effects of treatment and allow patients to complete their treatment protocol. The primary objective of this qualitative study is to evaluate the reasons for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

All patients from the Centre Léon Bérard (Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Lyon, France) who consent to one of the early-phase clinical trials proposed at the centre will be invited to participate in this study. The cohort will consist of a subgroup (n=20) of patients who accept palliative care together with their clinical trial, and a second subgroup (n=20) of patients who decline it. Patients will be interviewed in exploratory interviews conducted by a psychology researcher before the start of their clinical trial. The interviews will be audio-recorded. Patients will also be asked to complete quality of life and anxiety/depression questionnaires both before the beginning of the treatment and at the end of their clinical trial. The content of the interviews will be analysed thematically. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis of both cohorts will also be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Personal data will be collected and processed in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. All patients will give informed consent to participate. This study complies with reference methodology MR004 of the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés. The protocol has received the validation of an ethics committee (Groupe de Réflexion Ethique du CLB, number: 2020-006). The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04717440.

Motivation to Consent and Adhere to the FORT Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this qualitative study was to identify the motivational factors that influence cancer survivors to participate and adhere to the fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) FORT randomized controlled trial (RCT). Fifteen women diagnosed with breast and gynecological cancer who took part in the FORT RCT were interviewed about their experience to consent and adhere to the trial. The transcribed interviews were content analyzed within a relational autonomy framework. The analysis revealed that the participants’ motivation to consent and adhere to the FORT RCT was structured around thirteen subthemes grouped into four overarching themes: (1) Personal Influential Factors; (2) Societal Motivations; (3) Structural Influences; and (4) Gains in Emotional Support. The unique structures of the trial such as the group format, the friendships formed with other participants in their group and with the group leaders, and the right timing of the trial within their cancer survivorship trajectory all contributed to their motivation to consent and adhere to the FORT RCT. While their initial motivation to participate was mostly altruistic, it was their personal gains obtained over the course of the trial that contributed to their adherence. Potential gains in emotional and social support from psycho-oncology trials should be capitalized when approaching future participants as a mean to improve on motivations to consent and adhere.

Understanding Willingness to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials Among Patients and Caregivers Attending a Minority-Serving Academic Cancer Center

Advances in cancer treatment are impeded by low accrual rates of patients to cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The national rates of recruitment of underserved groups, including racial/ethnic minorities, are limiting the generalizability of research findings and are likely to enhance inequities in cancer outcomes. The goal of this study was to examine willingness to participate (WTP) in CCTs and factors associated with this willingness among patients and caregivers attending a minority-serving university cancer center in the Southwest. A cross-sectional survey design was utilized (n = 236, 135 patients and 101 caregivers). Fear was the strongest predictor of WTP in CCTs. The only ethnic differences observed related to Spanish-speaking patients exhibiting increased WTP in CCTs, and Spanish-speaking caregivers' decreased WTP, compared to others. These results underscore the importance of future interventions to reduce CCT-related fear among patients and caregivers, with particular need for family-focused tailored interventions designed to meet the needs of Spanish-speaking patients and caregivers.

Aggressiveness of care at end of life in patients with high-grade glioma

Background

Patients with high‐grade glioma (HGG) face unique challenges toward the end of life (EoL), given their aggressive trajectory and neurologic deterioration. Aggressiveness of medical care at EoL has been identified as an important quality metric for oncology patients. At this time, limited data exist around the nature of EoL care of patients with HGG.

Methods

Patients with HGG and palliative care (PC) referral seen between 2010 and 2015 were identified (N = 80). Of these, N = 52 met inclusion criteria. Random selections of patients with (1) HGG not referred to PC (n = 80), and (2) non‐CNS cancers with PC referral (n = 80) were identified for comparison. A composite score of aggressiveness of medical care at EoL was calculated for each patient from predetermined variables. A time of eligibility for PC was defined for each patient when predetermined criteria based on symptom burden, functional status, and prognosis were met.

Results

Among the patients analyzed with HGG referred to PC, 59.6% (N = 31) were referred as inpatients, and 53.8% (N = 28) were referred within the last 12 weeks of life. Patients with HGG had similar aggressiveness of care at EoL regardless of PC referral, and HGG patients had less aggressive care at EoL than patients with non‐CNS cancers (p = 0.007). Care was more aggressive at EoL in HGG patients who received late versus early PC referrals (p = 0.012). Motor weakness at time of eligibility (OR = 2.55, p = 0.002) and more disease progressions (OR = 1.25, p = 0.043) were associated with less aggressive care at EoL.

Conclusions

Early clinical‐ and disease‐related features predict the aggressiveness of medical care at EoL in patients with HGG. Formal PC consultation is used infrequently and suboptimally in patients with HGG. Our data suggest that the role of PC in improving EoL outcomes in HGG warrants further evaluation.

Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia after Stopping Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Treatment-free remission (TFR) is a goal for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Functional outcomes after discontinuing Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) treatment have not been described. PROMIS patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of social, physical, cognitive, and sexual function were assessed over 36 months in 172 adult patients with chronic phase CML from 14 sites at baseline (on TKI) and after discontinuation. Linear mixed-effects models described the average trajectories for each PROM after discontinuation and in those who restarted TKI. Of 112 patients in TFR at 12 months, 103 (92.0%) had a ≥ 3-point improvement in social function, 80 (71.4%) in social isolation, 11 (9.8%) in satisfaction with sex life, 4 (3.6%) in physical function, and no patients had a ≥ 3-point improvement in cognitive function or interest in sexual activity. Patients' scores worsened after restarting TKI. This novel information on functional outcomes in TFR can help guide patient and clinician decision-making.

Barriers and facilitators to the participation of subjects in clinical trials: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

The demand for clinical trial participants is today one of the highest it has ever been and continues to increase. At the same time, subject recruitment continues to be problematic and the major reason for clinical trial premature terminations. The literature on clinical trial recruitment, which spans several decades and includes hundreds of studies, has an abundance of findings that can be synthesized by way of an overview to provide a well-informed and complete picture of the factors that determine subject participation.

OBJECTIVES

An overview of the systematic reviews that report barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation was conducted. The extracted data were synthesized, and a thematic framework of the factors that affect subject participation in clinical trials was developed. The overview extended across medical subjects and demographics.

METHODS

Thirty reviews that complied with the inclusion criteria were included. These reviews covered 753 relevant primary studies and reported 881 barriers and facilitators. The barriers and facilitators were thematically synthesized and a thematic framework of 20 themes was developed. The quality of the included reviews was assessed and reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Several opportunities to increase clinical trial participation, by developing interventions and changing the trial design, derived from an analysis of the thematic framework. That analysis also showed that most of the 20 themes operate mainly as a barrier or as a facilitator, and that most have an effect across medical subjects. As to the quality elements assessed, some reviews complied almost fully but most only partially.

What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation

Data comparing outcomes in prostate cancer and factors affecting treatment choice are sparse. To inform the design of a comparative effectiveness clinical trial, we engaged patients in developing a 28‐question survey about decision making on treatment and research participation and dispersed it among men greater than or equal to 50 years of age. The 1046 respondents ranked long‐term clinical outcomes as most important in making treatment decisions, specific functional outcomes as slightly less important, and duration, location, and cost of treatment as least important. Treatment choice was strongly impacted by side effect profile. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two types of radiation with minimal differences in outcomes were “yes” in 15%, “no” in 39%, and “undecided” in 46%. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two treatment durations with similar outcomes were yes in 36%, no in 24%, and undecided in 40%. Findings suggest many potential patients have strong treatment preferences and are averse to randomization, particularly when outcomes of importance may be affected. Patient engagement in study design and novel nonrandomized trial designs may offer a path to increase clinical trial success.

The CORBEL matrix on informed consent in clinical studies: a multidisciplinary approach of Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services

BACKGROUND

Informed consent forms for clinical research are several and variable at international, national and local levels. According to the literature, they are often unclear and poorly understood by participants. Within the H2020 project CORBEL-Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services-clinical researchers, researchers in ethical, social, and legal issues, experts in planning and management of clinical studies, clinicians, researchers in citizen involvement and public engagement worked together to provide a minimum set of requirements for informed consent in clinical studies.

METHODS

The template was based on a literature review including systematic reviews and guidelines searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, NICE, SIGN, GIN, and Clearinghouse databases, and on comparison of templates gathered through an extensive search on the websites of research institutes, national and international agencies, and international initiatives. We discussed the draft versions step-by-step and then we referred to it as the "matrix" to underline its modular character and indicate that it allows adaptation to the context in which it will be used. The matrix was revised by representatives of two international patient groups.

RESULTS

The matrix covers the process of ensuring that the appropriate information, context and setting are provided so that the participant can give truly informed consent. It addresses the key topics and proposes wording on how to clarify the meaning of placebo and of non-inferiority studies, the importance of individual participants' data sharing, and the impossibility of knowing in advance how the data might be used in future studies. Finally, it presents general suggestions on wording, format, and length of the information sheet.

CONCLUSIONS

The matrix underlines the importance of improving the process of communication, its proper conditions (space, time, setting), and addresses the participants' lack of knowledge on how clinical research is conducted. It can be easily applied to a specific setting and could be a useful tool to identify the appropriate informed consent format for any study. The matrix is mainly intended to support multicentre interventional randomized clinical studies, but several suggestions also apply to non-interventional research.

Patient-Reported Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Toxicity During Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for patients with cancer. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well documented, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity in patients with cancer enrolled in phase I clinical trials for >1 month. Financial toxicity score was assessed using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity survey. Patients also reported monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) costs.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen patients completed the survey (72% non-Hispanic White; 45% with annual income ≤$60,000; 50% lived >300 miles from the clinic; 37% required air travel). Forty-eight percent of patients had monthly OOP costs of at least $1,000. Fifty-five percent and 64% of patients reported unanticipated medical and nonmedical expenses, respectively. Worse financial toxicity was associated with yearly household income <$60,000 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7; p = .008), having unanticipated medical costs (OR: 3.2; p = .024), and living >100 miles away from the clinical trial hospital (OR: 2.3; p = .043). Non-White or Hispanic patients (OR: 2.5; p = .011) and patients who were unemployed or not working outside the home (OR: 2.5; p = .016) were more likely to report high unanticipated medical costs.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with cancer participating in clinical trials, economic burden is high, and most of patients' OOP costs were nonmedical costs. Financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income and those who travel farther, and unexpected medical costs were more common among non-White or Hispanic patients. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The financial burden of cancer treatment is well documented, but there are limited data regarding the financial burden associated with cancer clinical trials. This study surveyed 213 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials. Monthly out-of-pocket costs were at least $1000 for nearly half of patients. Worse financial toxicity was associated with income <$60,000 and living farther away from the hospital. Racial/ethnic minorities had higher rates of unanticipated medical costs. These data help to quantify the high financial burden for patients and may reveal a cause of disparities in clinical trial enrollment for underrepresented populations.

A multistakeholder Delphi consensus core outcome set for clinical trials in moderate-to-severe asthma (coreASTHMA)

BACKGROUND

Treatments for long-term control of asthma have improved and include a promising but expensive class of biologic therapies. However, the clinical trials evaluating these and other novel treatments have used a variety of different outcomes to evaluate efficacy. The evolution of asthma care calls for a re-examination of outcomes that are most important to patients and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core set of outcomes to be measured in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

We used a robust and in-depth multistakeholder consensus process bringing together patients, clinicians, regulators, payers, health technology assessors, researchers, and product developers to reach consensus on outcomes. We used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus, an approach adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative aligned with contemporary methodological standards for core outcome set development.

RESULTS

The following outcomes were included in the final core set: severe asthma exacerbation, change in asthma control, asthma-specific or severe asthma-specific quality of life, asthma-specific hospital stay (ie, >24-hour stays at any level of care) or admission, and asthma-specific emergency department visit.

CONCLUSION

These 5 outcomes represent a minimum set of core outcomes for use in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in moderate-to-severe asthma. Consistent collection of these outcomes as minimum, independent of whether additional heterogeneous primary or secondary outcomes are included, will allow for meaningful comparisons of the effect of asthma therapies across clinical trials.

Navigating choice in the face of uncertainty: using a theory informed qualitative approach to identifying potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy trial

OBJECTIVES

Bench to bedside translation of groundbreaking treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy depends on patient participation in early phase trials. Unfortunately, many novel therapies fail to be adequately evaluated due to low recruitment rates, which slows patient access to emerging treatments. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we sought to identify potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial.

DESIGN

We used qualitative semistructured interviews to identify potential barriers and enablers to patients' hypothetical participation in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial. We used the TDF and directed content analysis to identify relevant domains based on frequency, relevance and the presence of conflicting beliefs.

PARTICIPANTS

Canadian adult patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies.

RESULTS

In total, we interviewed 13 participants (8 women, 5 men). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 73 (median=56) and had been living with haematological cancer from a few months to several years. We found participants were unfamiliar with CAR-T cell therapy but wished to know more about treatment safety, efficacy and trial logistics (domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences). They were motivated by altruistic considerations, though many prioritised personal health benefits despite recognising the goals (ie, establishing safety) of early phase clinical trials (domains: goals, intentions). Every participant valued receiving medical advice from their haematologists and oncologists, though some preferred impartial medical experts to inform their decision making (domain: social influences). Finally, participants indicated that improving access to financial and social supports would improve their trial participation experience (domain: environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSION

Using the TDF allowed us to identify factors that might undermine participation to a CAR-T cell therapy trial and to optimise recruitment processes by considering patient perspectives to taking part in early phase trials.Trial regestration: NCT03765177; Pre-results.

Discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify the influence of trial features on the decision to participate in cystic fibrosis (CF) clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Engaging people with cystic fibrosis (CF) in clinical trials is critical to improving outcomes for this fatal disease. Following extensive exploration of engagement in CF trials we believe six key concepts require a quantitative understanding of their influence in the current CF trials landscape including how controversial issues like placebos, washouts, stipend provision and location of trial visits are viewed by the CF community and how these might be modified depending on the type of medicine being investigated and the mechanism of access to the drug on trial completion.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We have designed and will administer an online discrete choice experiment to elicit and quantify preferences of people with CF for these trials' attributes and estimate the relative importance of an attribute when choosing to participate in a trial. The cross-sectional data generated will be explored using conditional multinomial logit model. Mixed logit models such as the random-parameters logit and a latent class models will be used to explore preference heterogeneity. To determine the relative importance of an attribute, the difference between the attribute level with the highest preference weight and the level with the lowest preference weight will be calculated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Imperial College London Joint Research Compliance Office has granted ethical approval for this study. Patient consent will be sought following full explanation. No identifying information will be collected. Dissemination will be via international conferences, peer-review publication and patient accessible forums. Major CF trials networks have agreed to incorporate our findings into their review process, meaning our results can realistically influence and optimise CF trial delivery.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020184886.

The Effect of a Complementary Therapy Education Seminar on Support Persons of Individuals with Cancer

Objectives: Complementary therapy (CT) use is prevalent among individuals living with cancer, who often consult family and friends (i.e., support persons) in making decisions about CT. This study examines the effect of an education seminar for adult cancer patients and support persons on the support persons' use, knowledge, and decision-making processes related to CT. Design: A patient education seminar that included support persons was developed and evaluated as part of a CT decision support research program. Survey data were collected before and after the education seminar to examine its impact on support persons' knowledge and use of CT, as well as their engagement in the CT decision-making process. Setting: The study was conducted in Western Canada. Subjects: 62 adult support persons. Interventions: Participants attended a 4-h CT education seminar at one in four provincial cancer centers. The seminar provided recommendations regarding how to make informed decisions about CT, where to find credible information, and key issues to consider to avoid potential risks of CT use. The evidence related to popular CT was also reviewed. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was support persons' CT knowledge. Secondary outcomes included CT use, information-seeking behavior, decision self-efficacy, decision conflict, and distress. Results: A significant increase in support persons' CT knowledge was observed, as well as improved confidence in CT decision making. There was no significant difference in participants' CT use following the education seminar. Most indicated they would continue to locate information about CT using the Internet. A significant decrease in support persons' decisional conflict was reported; however, there were no significant change in distress related to CT decision making. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of including support persons in patient education related to CT and the positive impact on their knowledge and treatment decision-making processes. No significant change in CT use, information seeking behavior and distress related to CT decisions, however, was observed in the study.

Advanced Symptom Management System for Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (ASyMSmeso): Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have a life-limiting illness and short prognosis and experience many debilitating symptoms from early in the illness. Innovations such as remote symptom monitoring are needed to enable patients to maintain wellbeing and manage symptoms in a proactive and timely manner. The Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) has been successfully used to monitor symptoms associated with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of using an ASyMS adapted for use by patients with MPM, called ASyMSmeso, enabling the remote monitoring of symptoms using a smartphone.

METHODS

This was a convergent mixed methods study using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at key time points over a period of 2-3 months with 18 patients. The Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) measure for eHealth, and Lung Cancer Symptom Scale-Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) were the PROMs used in the study. Patients were also asked to complete a daily symptom questionnaire on a smartphone throughout the study. At the end of the study, semistructured interviews with 11 health professionals, 8 patients, and 3 carers were conducted to collect their experience with using ASyMSmeso.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients with MPM agreed to participate in the study (33.3% response rate). The completion rates of study PROMs were high (97.2%-100%), and completion rates of the daily symptom questionnaire were also high, at 88.5%. There were no significant changes in quality of life, as measured by LCSS-Meso. There were statistically significant improvements in the SPARC psychological need domain (P=.049) and in the "Usefulness" domain of the TAM (P=.022). End-of-study interviews identified that both patients and clinicians found the system quick and easy to use. For patients, in particular, the system provided reassurance about symptom experience and the feeling of being listened to. The clinicians largely viewed the system as feasible and acceptable, and areas that were mentioned included the early management of symptoms and connectivity between patients and clinicians, leading to enhanced communication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that remote monitoring and management of symptoms of people with MPM using a mobile phone are feasible and acceptable. The evidence supports future trials using remote symptom monitoring to support patients with MPM at home.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

Clinical Trials: Understanding Patient Perspectives and Beliefs About Treatment

BACKGROUND

Understanding the experiences of patients with solid tumors who are in phase 1 clinical trials can help nurses to provide optimal care.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to describe patient perspectives of participating in a phase 1 trial and understanding their disease status and treatment options. In addition, the authors describe the impact of the disease and clinical trial participation on quality of life.

METHODS

30 patients were interviewed and audio recorded; the interviews were transcribed and content analysis methods were used to identify common themes.

FINDINGS

Patients reported participating in the phase 1 clinical trial because their doctors informed and encouraged them, they had no other treatment options if they wanted to live longer, or they wanted to help future patients with cancer. Most believed that participation would improve or stabilize their illness and quality of life. They believed that, when the clinical trial ended, there would be new treatments. Participants reported that healthcare providers and family members provided support, and that compassion, cultural awareness, spiritual support, and the need for individual attention were important.

Integrating Palliative Care for Patients on Clinical Trials: Opportunities for Oncology Nurses

The purpose of this article is to describe the lessons learned in the course of a 5-year research study on a palliative care intervention for persons on a Phase 1 clinical trial. Patients who are participating in Phase 1 trials and the families who care for them may be especially vulnerable and require special attention. The patients are generally experiencing the effects of advanced disease, and they also may soon experience unknown side effects, intense treatment regimens, and the emotional stress of an uncertain future as a result of clinical trial participation. Oncology nurses in all roles including clinical trials/research nurses, clinicians, educators, and advanced practice registered nurses play a critical role in addressing the quality-of-life concerns in this population. Palliative care can provide better symptom control and information on treatment options and facilitate a better understanding of patient/family goals. Attending to these factors can ultimately mean improved survival for the advanced cancer patient, and support for these patients can assist in advancing the field of oncology as these investigational therapies hold the promise for enhancing survival.

Formative research to design a culturally-appropriate cancer clinical trial education program to increase participation of African American and Latino communities

Background

Addressing knowledge deficiencies about cancer clinical trials and biospecimen donation can potentially improve participation among racial and ethnic minorities. This paper describes the formative research process used to design a culturally-appropriate cancer clinical trials education program for African American and Latino communities. We characterized community member feedback and its integration into the program.

Methods

We incorporated three engagement approaches into the formative research process to iteratively develop the program: including community-based organization (CBO) leaders as research team members, conducting focus groups and cognitive interviews with community members as reviewers/consultants, and interacting with two community advisory groups. An iterative-deductive approach was used to analyze focus group data. Qualitative data from advisory groups and community members were compiled and used to finalize the program.

Results

Focus group themes were: 1) Community Perspectives on Overall Presentation; 2) Community Opinions and Questions on the Content of the Presentation; 3) Culturally Specific Issues to Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials; 4) Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation; and 5) Perspectives of Community Health Educators. Feedback was documented during reviews by scientific experts and community members with suggestions to ensure cultural appropriateness using peripheral, evidential, linguistic, sociocultural strategies, and constituent-involving. The final program consisted of two versions (English and Spanish) of a culturally-appropriate slide presentation with speaker notes and videos representing community member and researcher testimonials.

Conclusions

Incorporating multiple community engagement approaches into formative research processes can facilitate the inclusion of multiple community perspectives and enhance the cultural-appropriateness of the programs designed to promote cancer clinical trial participation among African Americans and Latinos.

Decision-making in HIV clinical trials: a study with patients enrolled in antiretroviral trials

OBJECTIVE

To explore the decisional process of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) currently enrolled in antiretroviral clinical trials.

METHOD

Cross-sectional retrospective study. Outcome variables were reasons to participate, perceived decisional role (Control Preference Scale), the Decisional Conflict Scale and the Decisional Regret Scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations among these variables and with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed with non-parametric techniques.

RESULTS

Main reasons to participate were gratitude towards Fundación Huesped (47%), the doctor's recommendation (32%), and perceived difficulty to access treatment in a public hospital (28%). Most patients thought that they made their decision alone (54.8%) or collaboratively with the physician (43%). Decisional conflict was low, with only some conflict in the support subscale (median=16.67). Education was the only significant correlate of the total decisional conflict score (higher in less educated patients; p=0.018), whereas education, recent diagnosis, living alone, lower age, being man and doctor's recommendation to go to Fundación Huésped related to higher conflict in different subscales. Nobody regretted to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision making regarding participation in HIV trials, from the perspective of participants, was made respecting their autonomy and with very low decisional conflict. Currently, patients show no signs of regret. However, even in this favorable context, results highlight the necessity of enhancing the decision support in more vulnerable patients (e.g., less educated, recently diagnosed or with less social support), thus warranting equity in the quality of the decision making process.

Cancer-Related Internet Use and Online Social Networking Among Patients in an Early-Phase Clinical Trials Clinic at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

PURPOSE

We examined patterns, correlates, and the impact of cancer-related Internet use among patients with advanced cancer in a phase I clinical trials clinic for molecularly targeted oncologic agents.

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire on Internet use for cancer-related purposes that incorporated input from phase I clinical trial oncologists and patients was self-administered by patients age ≥ 18 years in a phase I clinic. Multivariable modeling was used. Data were analyzed for the overall sample and by generation, which was defined by year of birth.

RESULTS

Of 291 patients (52% women, 82% non-Hispanic white, 50% age ≤ 60 years), 62% were cancer-related Internet users (CIUs). Cancer-related Internet use was associated with an income of ≥ $60,000 (odds ratio, 2.42; P = .004). CIUs used the Internet to learn about their cancer (85%), treatment adverse effects (65%), clinical trials (52%), new alternative treatments (42%), and symptom management (41%). CIUs most frequently used the hospital Web site (70%) to learn about clinical trials, followed by ClinicalTrials.gov (42%) and search engines (41%). The emotional impact of Internet-derived cancer information on CIUs varied-56% felt empowered, 34% anxious, 29% relieved, and 17% confused. Cancer-related Internet information made 51% of patients from the Millennial (born after 1990) and Generation X/Y (born 1965 to 1990) CIU populations anxious compared with < 29% of CIUs from older generations (born 1964 and before). Most CIUs desired more online information about new experimental drugs (91%) and US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for cancer (72%).

CONCLUSION

As most phase I patients use the Internet for cancer-related purposes, the Internet overall and hospital Web sites should provide more extensive, pertinent, and helpful information on clinical trials and cancer treatment to phase I patients.

Evaluating Adaptation of a Cancer Clinical Trial Decision Aid for Rural Cancer Patients: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Rural-residing cancer patients often do not participate in clinical trials. Many patients misunderstand cancer clinical trials and their rights as participant. The purpose of this study is to modify a previously developed cancer clinical trials decision aid (DA), incorporating the unique needs of rural populations, and test its impact on knowledge and decision outcomes. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I recruited 15 rural-residing cancer survivors in a qualitative usability study. Participants navigated the original DA and provided feedback regarding usability and implementation in rural settings. Phase II recruited 31 newly diagnosed rural-residing cancer patients. Patients completed a survey before and after using the revised DA, R-CHOICES. Primary outcomes included decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, knowledge, communication self-efficacy, and attitudes towards and willingness to consider joining a trial. In phase I, the DA was viewed positively by rural-residing cancer survivors. Participants provided important feedback about factors rural-residing patients consider when thinking about trial participation. In phase II, after using R-CHOICES, participants had higher certainty about their choice (mean post-test = 3.10 vs. pre-test = 2.67; P = 0.025) and higher trial knowledge (mean percentage correct at post-test = 73.58 vs. pre-test = 57.77; P < 0.001). There was no significant change in decision self-efficacy, communication self-efficacy, and attitudes towards or willingness to join trials. The R-CHOICES improved rural-residing patients' knowledge of cancer clinical trials and reduced conflict about making a trial decision. More research is needed on ways to further support decisions about trial participation among this population.

Advance care planning with chronically ill patients: A relational autonomy approach

Advance care planning is a process that encourages people to identify their values, to reflect upon the meanings and consequences of serious illness, to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, and to discuss these goals with family and health-care providers. Advance care planning is especially important for those who are chronically ill, as patients and their families face a variety of complex healthcare decisions. Participating in advance care planning has been associated with improved outcomes; yet, despite over 25 years of public awareness campaigns, research, and interventions developed to increase participation, advance care planning completion rates for people with chronic illnesses are no different than those in the general public (approximately 25%). Advance care planning has traditionally used an individualistic approach to autonomy, which puts forward an understanding of agents as independent, rational and self-interested persons. Because this individualistic approach has been largely unsuccessful in improving advance care planning uptake, a re-examination of the philosophical underpinnings of this practice and an exploration of alternative frameworks is warranted. In offering this exploration, we briefly outline two current perspectives on autonomy: the individualistic view and the relational view as articulated by feminist philosophers. Using a critical examination of the theoretical and empirical work on this topic, we argue that the individualistic view of autonomy does not sufficiently capture the relational and social complexities of the decision-making process of advance care planning. To offer a counterpoint, we examine the relational view of autonomy and suggest that this perspective is better aligned with the process of advance care planning. Specifically, we demonstrate that a relational model of autonomy is well suited to exploring advance care planning for four main reasons: (1) it recognizes the importance of relationships, (2) it reflects the fluctuating nature of autonomy in chronic illness, (3) it recognizes vulnerability, and (4) it is consonant with empirical work examining the advance care planning process.

The Impact of an Educational Video on Clinical Trial Enrollment and Knowledge in Ethnic Minorities: A Randomized Control Trial

Introduction: Innovative methods to increase awareness about clinical trials and address barriers associated with low participation among racial/ethnic minorities are desperately needed. African Americans comprise 5% of all clinical trial participants, and Hispanics make up 1%. Use of multimedia educational material has shown promise as an effective strategy to increase minority clinical trial enrollment. However, this approach has not been broadly implemented. We tested the effect of a video educational program on clinical trial knowledge and enrollment in a sample of oncology outpatients. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 63 oncology patients without previous history of clinical trial participation. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention, to watch a clinical trial educational video in the office, or to the control group which did not receive in-office education. The Clinical Trial Knowledge survey was administered before the intervention and 1 week after the intervention. Participation in clinical trials was assessed 1-year post study participation. Results for white participants and ethnic minorities were compared. Ethnicity was self-reported through the electronic health record and confirmed by self-reporting on questionnaire. Results: Sixty-three participants were recruited in this study. At 1-year follow-up, 3 participants enrolled in clinical trials in the study group which had received office-based video intervention and 2 participants enrolled in the control group (Z = 0.39, p = 0.69). These results were not statistically significant. Impact of the intervention by ethnicity could not be assessed due to low total clinical trial enrollment. The video intervention did not change knowledge, attitudes, or barriers as measured by the Clinical Trial Knowledge Survey. Minority participants did report significantly more negative beliefs and barriers to participation than white participants. Conclusions: Increasing awareness and knowledge about clinical trials in underrepresented communities is an important step to providing opportunities for participation. Future studies should focus on how to address the negative expectations of clinical trials and the greater information needs in minority populations. Tailored or personalized messaging may address negative perceptions of clinical trial participation.

Cancer patients' perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: A qualitative meta-synthesis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine cancer patients' perceptions of factors that may influence their decisions on participating in phase I-III clinical drug trials.

BACKGROUND

The number of cancer participants in clinical drug trials has increased rapidly in Denmark in recent years. The rights, safety and well-being of patients considering participation are protected by the international, ethical and scientific principles. A meta-synthesis was conducted to enable health professionals to support cancer patients who are considering trial participation in accordance with the above principles.

DESIGN

Meta-synthesis.

METHODS

A qualitative meta-synthesis, as described by Sandelowski and Barroso, was conducted based on a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Nine reports were found eligible and were included. The PRISMA checklist was used.

RESULTS

A framework was developed, and patients' perceptions of the factors influencing their decisions were identified, namely patients' perceptions of their relatives, the physician, the hope of therapeutic benefit, altruism, having other options and living with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cancer patients' decisions on participation in clinical drug trials are influenced by their perceptions of trust towards the physician, their relatives' attitudes and the consequences participation might have for their families. Patients are motivated to participate due to the hope of therapeutic benefit and for altruistic reasons. The factors influencing their decisions to participate include a cost-benefit consideration, which in turn may be subject to the patient's perception of having other options available besides participation. This may be related to the patient's attitude towards living with cancer, and the decision can be a way of trying to cope with the psychological aspects of living with cancer.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of this meta-synthesis offer insight into patients' perceptions of what may influence their decisions, and they enable health professionals to support patients making such decisions.

The decision partner in healthcare decision-making: A concept analysis

BACKGROUND

The decision partner concept emerged to describe someone who contributes to healthcare decision-making with a patient. There is a need for greater precision and consensus surrounding its conceptual definition and use in broader populations.

OBJECTIVE

To define and describe the decision partner concept within the context of healthcare decision-making.

DESIGN

A concept analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the following databases for articles published between 1990-2017: PsychINFO, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We included qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies that used the term decision partner in the context of healthcare decision-making.

METHODS

We applied the Walker and Avant method to identify the antecedents, attributes, related concepts, consequences, and empirical referents of the concept, with major themes identified.

RESULTS

From the 112 articles included in this concept analysis, 6 defining attributes of decision partner were identified: (1) has a relationship with the patient, (2) demonstrates a willingness to participate in decision-making, (3) articulates a clear understanding of both the patient's health condition and the decisions that must be made, (4) demonstrates decision-making self-efficacy; (5) exemplifies an emotional capacity to participate in decision-making, and (6) willing to fulfill several supportive roles including patient advocate and the "hub of information".

CONCLUSIONS

A unifying definition and discussion of the decision partner concept has been developed. Our findings: (1) offer insights into refining the concept across various diseases and healthcare encounters, (2) contribute to developing theoretical models and empirical research to refine antecedents, attributes, consequences, (3) serve as a foundation to develop instruments to measure the concept and (4) highlight the need to design interventions that include and support decision partners in healthcare decision-making.

"Ultimately, mom has the call": Viewing clinical trial decision making among patients with ovarian cancer through the lens of relational autonomy

OBJECTIVE

This study employs the concept of relational autonomy to understand how relational encounters with family members (FMs) and care providers may shape decisions around ovarian cancer patients' clinical trial (CT) participation. The study also offers unique insights into how FMs view patients' decision making.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 33 patients with ovarian cancer who had been offered a CT and 39 FMs. Data were inductively analysed using a thematic approach and deductively informed by constructs derived from the theory of relational autonomy (RA).

RESULTS

Patients' relationships, experiences and social status were significant resources that shaped their decisions. Patients did not give equal weight to all relationships and created boundaries around whom to include in decision making. Doctors' recommendations and perceived enthusiasm were described as influential in CT decisions. Both patients with ovarian cancer and their FMs maintained that patients have the "final say," indicating an individualistic autonomy. However, maintaining the "final say" in the decision-making process is constitutive of patients' relationships, emphasizing a relational approach to autonomy. FMs support patients' autonomy and they do so particularly when they believe the patient is capable of making the right choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ethical principles underlying informed consent for CT participation emphasize individual autonomy, greater attention to relational autonomy is warranted for a more comprehensive understanding of CT decision making.

Relational autonomy in breast diseases care: a qualitative study of contextual and social conditions of patients' capacity for decision-making

BACKGROUND

A relational approach to autonomy refers to the way in which social conditions and relationships shape a person's self-identity and capacity in decision-making. This article provides an empirical account of how treatment choices for women undergoing breast diseases care are fostered within the dynamics of their relationships with clinicians, family members, and other aspects of their social environment.

METHODS

This qualitative study recruited ten women undergoing treatment at a breast programme, and eight clinicians supporting their care, in a private teaching hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Fourteen patient-clinician consultation observations and 17 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Schema analysis of interview transcripts were undertaken by a team of researchers and corroborated by observational fieldnotes.

RESULTS

Relational identities of patients influenced the rationale for treatment decision-making. Patients drew on supportive resources from family and medical advice from clinicians to progress with treatment goals. While clinicians held much social power over patients as the medical experts, patients highlighted the need for clinicians to earn their trust through demonstrated professionalism. Information exchange created a communicative space for clinicians and patients to negotiate shared values, promoting greater patient ownership of treatment decisions. As treatment progressed, patients' personal experiences of illness and treatment became a source of self-reflection, with a transformative impact on self-confidence and assertiveness.

CONCLUSION

Patients' confidence and self-trust can be fostered by opportunities for communicative engagement and self-reflection over the course of treatment in breast disease, and better integration of their self-identity and social values in treatment decisions.

Patients' reasoning regarding the decision to participate in clinical cancer trials: an interview study

BACKGROUND

Clinical cancer trials are crucial for the implementation of new treatments in the clinical setting, but it is equally crucial that patients are given the opportunity to make a well-informed decision about participation. The inclusion process is complex, including both oral and written information about the trial. The process of patients' decision-making regarding clinical cancer trials has not yet been sufficiently studied. This interview study aims to explore the process of patients' reasoning regarding the decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial.

METHODS

The study is based on 27 individual face-to-face interviews with patients who had decided to participate in a clinical cancer trial. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and then analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Content analysis revealed 17 subthemes grouped into five themes: (1) an unhesitating decision to participate; (2) a decision based on flimsy grounds and guided by emotion; (3) feeling safe and secure with my decision; (4) faced with a choice versus what choice do I have? and (5) hoping for help while helping others. The decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial was often immediate and guided by emotions, based on a trusting relationship with healthcare personnel rather than on careful reading of written information. Palliative patients, in particular, sometimes had unrealistic beliefs about the effectiveness of the trial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

It is vital that the decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial is preceded by an honest dialogue about possible positive and negative effects of the trial treatments, including other options such as supportive care in the palliative setting. Our findings also raise the questions of how important written information is for the decision-making process and also whether genuine informed consent is possible. To reach a higher degree of informed consent, it is most important that the oral information is given in a thorough and unbiased manner.